Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Rural Post Offices

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of rural post offices since 1 May; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Seventeen such representations have been received, including a petition with 1,098 signatures.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not surprised that he received so many representations in one month. I have received 10,000 responses that have been directed at the Secretary of State for Social Security, to whom most reponses would be directed. Will the Minister talke to his right hon. Friend and ensure that the Secretary of State does not reduce payments through the Post Office but actively encourages those payments, because the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales have held their posts long enough to know that post offices are essential to rural areas in my constituency and those of other hon. Members in Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an assurance on 18 May that pensioners and other beneficiaries may continute to collect their benefit from a post office if that is their preference. That was confirmed the following day by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who explained during a debate on the matter that the new forms would make it clear that beneficiaries could collect their benefits from post offices.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did not the question arise from the trial carried out by the Department of Social Security to see whether beneficiaries required to be paid through vouchers or credit to account? Is it not the case that the Department received an unequivocal answer from social security beneficiaries and that Conservative Members, who represent the overwhelming majority of rural areas, would have said the same in the first place?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be aware that that matter concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is high time that we nailed that canard about automated credit transfer being compulsorily required.

Mr. Hain: Surely the Government must concede that they are still pressing ACT through, although perhaps not by compulsory measures. That will threaten well over half the rural post offices in Wales. Does the Minister agree that, unless the Government provide alternative work for those sub-post offices that depend on benefit claimants as a lifeline for their business, his assurances are worthless?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Government business through the Post Office has increased in recent years. My right hon. Friends and I have said that ACT is not compulsory and that the choice whether to receive payments through a post office or through a bank or building society remains with the beneficiary.

Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister aware that the possibility that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will allow newspapers to be distributed through supermarkets is another threat that is looming on the horizon for small post offices and shops? That might provide a short-term


improvement in the availability of newspapers, but the long-term effect would be damaging. Does the Minister agree that that would be a further blow to the shops and post offices that are essential to the community and the quality of life in rural areas?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government are committed to maintaining a national network of post offices and that, of course, includes rural post offices. That does not mean to say, however, that some rural post offices may not be closed for business reasons. That is a matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

Single-parent Families

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the cost to public funds of supporting single-family families in Wales: and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of lone parents in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I have had several hundred letters and messages, overwhelmingly in support of what I said—especially about teenage pregnancies.

Mr. Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Has he seen the memorandum addressed to him on page 12 of today's edition of The Times? Does he agree that grandparents are not without some responsibility for the children of teenage single parents, as is the case in the United States, Italy, Germany and, I understand, France? Will he ask the Child Support Agency to extend its interest to include grandparents as well as parents?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that, wherever possible, all members of the family should help if a young lady is pregnant and in need of support from parents or others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is reviewing the matter and I am sure that he, too, will look carefully at what my hon. Friend said today.
I hope that the Labour Members will take this opportunity to put it on record that they, too, would like to do something about teenage pregnancies—and especially for schoolgirls—and echo my comments that, wherever possible, we should encourage people to settle down and gain a little more experience before having babies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. As I understand it, Question 2 is linked with Question 8. Is that correct? The Secretary of State did not announce that that was the case.

Mr. Redwood: If you would like me to do so, Madam Speaker, I should be happy to link the two questions.

Madam Speaker: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the two questions are linked.

Mrs. Gorman: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have taken the trouble to read the remarks from his recent speech in Wales which have been so widely reported. Does he accept that I entirely agree with the gist

of his remarks, which was that the fathers of such children should be made responsible for them? Does he agree, however, that less than 15 per cent. of single-parent families were single-parent families when the births were registered, and that most single mothers were cohabiting when the children were born or they are widowed or divorced women who are bringing up children on their own?
Does my right hon. Friend further agree that we should reform the provisions of the welfare state that allow fathers to walk away from their responsibilities, rather than create a witch hunt surrounding young women who are made pregnant by young men with no sense of responsibility for what they are doing?

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that the intention of Government policy is to pursue the fathers where possible and to ask them to make a contribution. We think that they should make a financial contribution. We should like them to make other kinds of contributions to family life, but that will not always be possible. My hon. Friend asked how many single parents there were in Wales. The answer is 68,000, and I confirm that not all of them are the teenage parents on whom my hon. Friend and I primarily concentrated our remarks.

Mr. Hanson: Does the Secretary of State accept that his comments on single mothers have caused great offence throughout Wales and that, on reflection, he would have done better to spend his time in Cardiff talking about other matters? Will he take it from me that single mothers especially are often the victims of the effects of 14 years of Tory Government—homelessness, unemployment, poor quality of life and poverty? It would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman targeted the issues rather than single mothers.

Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the connection between the points that I am making and the problems in which he claims to be interested, he ought to go back to the drawing board. His remarks are not surprising, coming as they do from a member of the nowhere party. Labour Members do not know what their view is on anything; they do not seem to have a view on single parenthood and what should be done to encourage people to have children in wedlock, after stable relationships have been formed. That is an important contribution to the social debate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon learn why it is important.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State did, indeed, address a serious problem; clearly, resentment exists on estates about alleged queue jumping. But, on more mature reflection, does not he think that he might have shown a little more compassion in his speech? If he wants to crusade, should not he crusade against the conditions and the environment on many of our estates, rather than against people who are the victims of those conditions?

Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that I went to the estate in question to look at the conditions there. I promised people on the estate that if they came forward with sensible plans for improvement, I would view them with a kindly eye and see whether we could help. Of course I want to attack rotten conditions on housing estates; but I also want to open a bigger debate on


social conditions generally, because it is not just the Government but people—grandparents, parents and the whole of society—who should contribute to improvements.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the views of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) are not shared by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who sadly is not present, and who welcomed the remarks made by my right hon. Friend? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that there is resentment over social housing allocation policy? If we are to address that issue, we must consider the needs of single parents; but ultimately, we need more social housing. May I therefore direct my right hon. Friend's attention to that issue? I urge him to announce further housing for those who are socially disadvantaged and who will never be able to afford to become home owners. unlike so many people in Wales.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased to announce that 487 dwellings, which are currently empty and not being used in the public estate, are to be brought forward for rent and sale from the NHS estate. I hope that will be widely welcomed in the House.
My hon. Friend is right, as was the hon. Member for Swansea, East, in thinking that there are difficult issues of allocation for councils to consider, because we wish to encourage people to settle down in stable relationships and marriages before they have children.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that his attack on single mothers was ill-judged and vindictive? Does not he realise that 70 per cent. of single parents are widowed, separated or divorced? Is he aware that 90 per cent. of single parents want a job and that the problem is not just the lack of jobs but the pathetic inadequacy of the child care system? Can he explain why one in four health authority family planning clinics has been shut and the Government have refused to insist on sex education as part of the school curriculum? Why does not he use a bit of common sense instead of crude scapegoating?

Mr. Redwood: Once again, the nowhere party has not listened to what I have said and is not interested in the debate. I have always made it clear that when relationships have broken down, someone has died or a partnership has been forced apart, for reasons beyond the control of any individual, I am, of course, extremely sympathetic. That was not the issue that I was opening up in my speech. I was opening up the case of teenage pregnancies where there was no intention of the father playing a proper role in the family or trying to do so. I still wish to know whether the Labour party approves or disapproves of that.

Welsh Language Education

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of Welsh school children are taught using Welsh as their first language; arid what assessment his Department has made on the progress of such children into further and higher education relative to those using English as their first language.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Welsh was the sole or main medium of instruction for 16 per cent. of primary school pupils in

September 1991, and 15·8 per cent. of secondary pupils in Wales were attending a Welsh-speaking secondary school. as defined by the Education Reform Act 1988. Provisional analyses of the information for the 1991–92 school year shows that 33 per cent. of pupils from Welsh-speaking schools went on to further or higher education. That compares with 30 per cent. of pupils from all local education authority and grant-maintained schools in Wales.

Mr. Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that that shows that the Government's policy of keeping Welsh a living language has been extremely successful. What effect does he think that Labour's failure to support the Welsh Language Bill—and, indeed, the fact that Plaid Cymru has voted against it—will have on our excellent policy?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that all the progress in Welsh-medium education has resulted from the Education Act 1944. We sought to improve matters further through the Welsh Language Bill, which represents a considerable advance for Welsh speakers and will mean that guidelines will be prepared by the Welsh Language Board, under which local education authorities will state what provision they are making for Welsh medium education.

Mr. Rogers: At some time in his busy schedule, will the Minister take time to instruct his stool pigeons who are brought forward to ask questions—

Hon. Members: Order.

Madam Speaker: Order. I consider that somewhat unparliamentary language, and I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his comment. If he is going to put a question, will he do so?

Mr. Rogers: I withdraw the remark, Madam Speaker.
Will the Minister of State instruct those whom he has brought into the Chamber to fill up Question Time in the basic knowledge relating to the Welsh language? Perhaps he will tell the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who has crept into the Chamber and begun criticising Labour's policies on Welsh, that if it were not for the Labour party—particularly Labour-controlled authorities in south Wales—there would be no Welsh language in the form in which we are discussing it? Will the Minister also ask the hon. Member for South Dorset—whom he has dragged in to act for him this afternoon—to recognise that the outstanding results announced today follow the excellent work done to support the Welsh language in south Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman's party has some responsibility for the success of the Welsh language, is not it curious that it did not support the Third Reading of the Welsh Language Bill? As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friends, I note that some hon. Members representing parts of the United Kingdom other than Wales are present on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps Welsh Opposition Members should table rather more questions; then they might have the same luck as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset.

Defence Procurement

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect of defence procurement on Welsh industry.

Mr. Redwood: It was estimated in 1991 that defence procurement accounted for some 4,000 jobs, or 2 per cent. of manufacturing, in Wales.

Mr. Fabricant: Has my right hon. Friend made any assessment of the effect on defence procurement jobs that would have resulted had the Labour party—the "caring party"—been elected at the last general election?

Mr. Redwood: It was estimated at the time of the last general election—I do not believe that the Labour party has ever withdrawn the policies involved—that 115,000 jobs in defence-related industries would have been wiped out in the United Kingdom, to say nothing of the jobs lost in the Army, Navy and Air Force. We can truly say that, when it comes to jobs in Wales, the Opposition are the demolition men; we are standing up for Wales and winning new jobs for it.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that all Opposition Members welcome defence cuts? We also recognise, however, that they have a tendency to put people out of work. The truth is that the Government have not succeeded in turning swords into ploughshares. What is more, market forces will not cure the evil; we need active intervention by the Government.

Mr. Redwood: I am sad to learn that the hon. Gentleman welcomes job losses. As for his second point, he is entirely wrong: we are taking steps to try to encourage companies to diversify. We are keen to diversify both the Welsh industrial base and the product ranges of individual companies. A Ministry of Defence secondee is currently helping the Welsh Development Agency with that important task. However, we also want the country to be well defended—and that is better news for jobs than it would be under Labour.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Wales is part of the United Kingdom's defence export industry, which creates thousands of jobs across this country? Those jobs would be destroyed if we listened to the Labour party. Does my right hon. Friend really believe that Government intervention could help, when historically it has proved very expensive and has ended up destroying jobs in many once fine companies, such as British Shipbuilders and Rover?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right: defence exports are important to Wales, as they are to the rest of the United Kingdom. Having sound defences here provides a platform from which we can export suitable products.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the past 10 years, 50 per cent. of the defence procurement budget has been spent in south-east England and an average of 2 per cent. in Wales? If cuts are made in Welsh military and defence establishments, will the right hon. Gentleman try to secure more investment expenditure from that budget? What is his policy in that regard?

Mr. Redwood: Of course we will try to encourage Welsh companies to respond to procurement opportunities through the offer of support available from Ministry of

Defence expertise, the Welsh Development Agency and elsewhere. I will battle for more jobs for Wales over the months and years ahead, in the way that I have been doing since I was appointed.

Mr. Murphy: Bearing in mind that many thousands of Welsh people who work in defence-related industries, including the royal ordnance factory in Glascoed in Gwent, depend very heavily on contracts from the MOD, does the Secretary of State agree that British forces should buy and use British equipment?

Mr. Redwood: Wherever possible, that is desirable. We also have to think about European Community procurement rules and value for money. I want British companies to do well, to win the competitions and supply the goods. I will not be shy in arguing for British success.

Coronary Heart Disease

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the incidence of premature coronary heart disease in Wales in 1980 and in the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): There were 4,052 deaths of Welsh residents under the age of 75 from coronary heart disease in 1992, compared with 5,676 deaths in 1980.

Mr. Coombs: I am sure that the whole House will approve the substantial improvement in the health of the Welsh people that those figures represent. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a very strong correlation between premature coronary heart disease and diet? Does he further agree that there is a link between people's eating habits and what they are taught at school? If he does agree, will he make representations. as the Minister responsible for the health of the Welsh people, to the Department for Education about the place of home economics in the core curriculum to ensure that schoolchildren in Wales are taught diet and nutrition as part of that curriculum?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful for the welcome that my hon. Friend gave those figures. The work of health promotion in schools is already being undertaken by the Health Promotion Authority in Wales. I was in Rhondda on Friday, visiting one of the life education centres, and I saw how effective the authority is at promoting healthy living messages to schoolchildren, including the importance of balanced diets.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that there is a link between not only heart disease and diet but heart disease and poverty?

Mr. Jones: We acknowledge the range of factors that are combating the fight against coronary heart disease, as we do other efforts to try to meet health-gain goals throughout Wales. A range of other measures has to be taken into account, including balanced diet, more regular exercise and anti-smoking campaigns. If the hon. Gentleman had studied closely the figures that we have set and our goals, he would know that in Wales, according to various health indicators, we have started from a low base and we have to reach a higher attainment level. We have set ourselves a target of a 33 per cent. reduction in premature death from cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years.

Mr. Morgan: The level of premature heart disease is still very high in Wales. Open-heart surgery was invented in Wales, where Sir Magdi Yacoub carried out much of his earlier training before moving to Harefield. In January 1984, nine and a half years ago, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, made a promise to increase the number of open-heart operations in Wales from 500 to more than 1,100 a year. That promise has probably got whiskers on it, as the number of operations has not yet reached 600—indeed, it is so prehistoric that a dinosaur movie called "Thoracic Park" could be made about it.

Mr. Jones: I thought that it was a representative of "Jurassic Park" posing that question. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not listen. If he had taken any opportunity to study this important matter, he would know that we have undertaken a £500 million expansion programme to increase to 800 the number of heart operations in the University hospital of Wales. Only four weeks ago, I announced from the Dispatch Box the go-ahead for a second cardiac centre at Morriston in Swansea to take the number up to 1,400.

West Wales Task Force

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will convene a meeting of the strategy group of the West Wales task force.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The next meeting of the strategy group will he held in the autumn on a date yet to be decided.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that that answer is totally unsatisfactory? The last time the strategy group of the task force met was on 25 January, when the former Secretary of State for Wales, now the Secretary of State for Employment, assured the group that the new director would be in place as soon as possible, funded by the Welsh Development Agency. Is he also aware that, on 28 April, the right hon. Gentleman assured business men in my constituency that the director would be appointed in May? There is still no director for the task force. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Jones: The question of the director for the task force is being urgently considered by that task force and all the other local authorities involved. It was appropriate for them to have an input concerning the sort of director that they wanted. There is no lack of activity, however, regarding implementation of the important objectives of the task force. This year, we committed £2·5 million under the rural initiative; £250,000 under the LEADER scheme; and £3·7 million to upgrade rural and urban development activities.

Unemployment

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to reduce unemployment levels.

Mr. Redwood: We intend to reduce unemployment by continuing our successful economic policies of low interest rates, a very competitive economy, low inflation, good road and rail links, good training and encouraging and promoting investment.

Mr. Flynn: What is the Secretary of State's reaction to the figures that I sent him which show that, according to a new methodology used by the House of Commons Library, the unemployment percentage in Newport, West is the joint highest in Wales? What is his reaction to the fact that, last year, Newport, West witnessed the second-largest increase in unemployment in any Welsh constituency? In those circumstances, how can the Government or anyone else contemplate taking away assisted area status from Newport? Will he give an unequivocal answer this afternoon that that will not happen and that he is virgorously opposing that insane suggestion?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself a little longer. As soon as the European Community has completed its review of the Government's proposals, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will present them to the House. I hope that that will happen soon. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see the outcome. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I have, of course, argued a vigorous case for Wales, as he would expect me to do.
Why does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that, since 1986, long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent? Why does not he welcome the fact that the Welsh unemployment rate is below the United Kingdom average? Why does not he welcome the fact that it appears that the United Kingdom average has now fallen beneath the EC average? All that is good news and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get behind it.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policies of low inflation, low interest rates and a stable work force, which have been pursued by our Government, are the right prescription? Is not it time that the Opposition recognised that and supported the Government rather than carped and moaned about unemployment?

Mr. Redwood: I agree that those are the right policies. My hon. Friend might like to know that, at noon today, an order was announced for 4 million new telephones worth £50 million. That is good news for jobs in Cwmcarn in Gwent where those telephones will be manufactured.

Mr. Kinnock: I particularly welcome that last piece of good news and the efforts undertaken by the Welsh Office to encourage further orders for the Abercarn plant. Confidence in that plant is well established and it is wise to build on it. Is the Secretary of State aware, however, that, in the past year, the pharmaceutical industries of Wales have lost more than 500 jobs? Since 1985, because of the Government's introduction of the limited list for drugs for national health service prescriptions, pharmaceutical manufacturers have moved their development and production facilities elsewhere, which has meant, of course, that jobs have gone elsewhere.
In the interests of the health of patients and the health of the economy, will the right hon. Gentleman use all possible offices to persuade the Government to review that limited list policy so that we create a much stronger domestic base for our pharmaceutical industry and thereby help the health of the nation and the health of the economy?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I will look further at the


issues of pharmaceutical investment and job transfers from Wales, which were raised in a previous Question Time. I have asked for a review of the position. I am happy to meet the interested pharmaceutical companies to see whether there is anything that the Government can do to improve the climate further so that companies stay in Wales and invest there.

Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that vacancies are appearing for chairmen of companies in Wales, one of which was recently snapped up by that champion of lost causes, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), although I do not recall the job being advertised? Does he agree that that may be the first sign that the Opposition are about to change their shadow Secretary of State and, possibly, have their fifth shadow Secretary of State before Christmas? Four of the shadow Secretary of State's predecessors are sitting on the Opposition Back Benches this afternoon.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. I can reassure him that, if that happened, it would not lead to an increase in unemployment, because no doubt there would be a replacement for the person going.

Mr. Barry Jones: British Aerospace at the Broughton works in my constituency has announced 250 redundancies, which would bring the total number of job losses at that great plane-making plant to more than 1,000 in just over one year. Why must such highly skilled, loyal, able and very productive plane makers lose their jobs in that way? It appears to me that the Government and the Cabinet have no strategy for Britain's manufacturing industries. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Government's policy continues as it appears to be doing, the United Kingdom will be denuded of a manufacturing base? What will he do to assist the plane-makers at Broughton, who are losing patience at the bleeding away of their jobs after doing everything that they have been asked to do for many years? They are the best, most loyal, most skilled and productive workers, so what will the Government do to assist them?

Mr. Redwood: A productivity miracle is under way in this country—production is more than 10 per cent. up on the figures for the past year. It is desperately important that, as productivity rises that quickly—and we want it to —enough orders are won so that jobs are not lost and people can make many more products at the much better unit costs that have been established. I shall look at any proposition that the hon. Gentleman cares to put to me about the tragic situation in his constituency, because I do not like to see those job losses any more than he does. The problem is connected with cutting costs, which will mean that the company is more competitive in the future, and is obviously related to the demand for the planes. If there are ways in which the Government can help to promote more sales of planes—that is the only way to get these jobs—I am happy to do whatever is necessary and legal.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will probably not be aware that, in some cases, what is good news for reducing unemployment in Wales may be bad news for other parts of the country. He may not yet he aware that, in my constituency, Burtons Biscuits, which is a subsidiary of Associated British Foods, has a factory that has announced up to 600 redundancies, whereas it hopes to

increase production at its factory in Llantarman in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend join me in doing all that he can to ensure that any of my constituents who work at the factory and wish to take up vacancies at Llantarman are able to? Will he work with his right hon. Friends in other Departments to try to change the mind of the company so that it reduces or withdraws the redundancies in my constituency?

Mr. Redwood: I am happy to look at my hon. Friend's suggestion about the transfer of workers. However, there will be times when rationalisation is needed to make a business competitive. Again, the best answer is to get out there and sell more of the underlying products so that we can have more jobs overall. It is a fearfully competitive world and unfortunately it is necessary for British manufacturing to continue to lower its costs and make improvements in its processes, or there will be no jobs at all in manufacturing. That is the essential first step to grow a bigger manufacturing base.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the priority given by the Secretary of State to reduced interest rates to support the economy of Wales. Does he agree that that has come about through the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the exchange rate mechanism?

Mr. Redwood: That and other factors obviously lay behind successive Chancellors' decisions on interest rates. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the current level of rates, which are low by European standards and are allowing the substantial recovery that we so desperately need. I hear good reports from some manufacturers about volume gains and I want to see them spread ever more widely. I want to see more British products sold in British shops.

Mr. Ron Davies: I start by declaring my interest in a company which is registered as Quality Training Services. The people of my constituency will not thank the Secretary of State for his earlier remarks, in which he played politics with their jobs. Is he aware of the efforts that were made over the weekend to safeguard the dozens of jobs and the hundreds of training opportunities throughout south Wales which are threatened by the collapse of Commercial and Industrial Training Services Ltd. in my constituency? Is he aware that the well-known Tory quango-gatherer, Donald Walters, was chairman of the board of the failed company and that there is clear evidence of poor leadership and mismanagement?
Will the Secretary of State join me in unequivocally appealing to the three training and enterprise councils of Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and Gwent to transfer the existing contracts with CITS to the new company, which was established this morning? That will create an opportunity for a fresh enterprise, with a vigorous and competitive approach, to safeguard jobs and training opportunities.

Mr. Redwood: Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's aims of protecting jobs and ensuring that proper training is available. I have not yet conducted a proper review of the proposal that he has just put to me, but I will do so and see whether his method is the right way to approach the problem. He can rest assured that I will do what I can to protect training and jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Charter Marks

Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charter marks have been awarded since the inception of the scheme.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): In 1992, the first year of the scheme, 36 charter marks were awarded to a wide range of public sector organisations which had demonstrated the highest standard of service to their customers. This year, the charter unit has received 411 applications, over 100 more than last year. Up to 100 awards will be made.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful for that answer, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of charter mark applications is every bit as important as the quantity? Therefore, will he tell us whether the quality of applications has increased over the past year and. if so, whether first-class applications, such as that made by the South Tees Benefits Agency in my constituency, have contributed to that welcome fact?

Mr. Waldegrave: I happen to know that that application is before my colleagues in the Department and it will be judged along with the rest. My hon. Friend is right. As the scheme has become better understood, there has been an increase in the quality of applications and I welcome that and congratulate those involved.

Ms Mowlam: In a week that I believe marks the second anniversary of the citizens charter, will the Minister comment on the validity of the charter marks, as well as his ability to deliver openness in central Government machinery—a subject on which he produced a White paper last week—given that his integrity as a Minister has been seriously put in question by the evidence produced last week that he misled the House over the Matrix Churchill affair?

Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw what she has said. No Minister misled the House.

Ms Mowlam: I will withdraw the question on the Minister's integrity. However, I would like him to explain—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Lady to withdraw her statement that the Minister has misled the House.

Ms Mowlam: I will withdraw the statement that the Minister misled the House.
May I ask the Minister instead whether he considers the evidence that came to light last week a contradiction to his job as Minister with responsibility for open government?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady asked about charter marks and I am happy to answer that question. Charter marks are welcomed widely in the public sector and are helping to represent the congratulations of the House and the British people on the high standards that are found in much of the public sector. On her latter point, I hope that the hon. Lady, who I am sure is a fair-minded person, will wait for the full evidence before making political capital out of important matters.

Science and Engineering

Mr. Coe: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the British Association for the Advancement of Science since the publication of the science and engineering White Paper.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have been in regular touch with the British Association. I recently addressed a conference on science, technology and wealth creation, organised by the association's science and industry committee, and I was glad to hear the chairman of that committee, Sir Denis Rooke, give the White Paper a warm welcome.

Mr. Coe: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. I know that he is keen to enhance the public's understanding of science and technology, a process which is central to re-establishing in the British psyche the importance of our manufacturing industries. Can I urge him to attend his summer's science festival, organised by the British Association?

Mr. Waldegrave: The summer festival of the British Association is one of the major shop windows for science and technology, and has been very successful for a number of years. I look forward to addressing the festival on 2 September and I hope to attend every year.

Mr. Miller: Does the Chancellor share my concern that the City has yet to take on board the impact of the White Paper? Is it correct that only nine City representatives turned up at the conference referred to by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe)? Does he think that more work has to be done to persuade the City of the importance of science and technology?

Mr. Waldegrave: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment. The British Association took the trouble to hold the conference in the heart of the City geographically and it was dissapointing that more people did not attend. It is essential that those who have power and investment in the country understand that long-term investment will best be protected in companies that carry out research and development properly.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Association was one of many representational bodies to comment on his White Paper and does he agree that the vast majority of comments have been favourable? Equally, does he agree that many such bodies look forward to a distribution between defence research and development and civil research and development? Has he any comment to make about the prospects on that front?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and believe that he is right that the White Paper has been broadly welcomed and accepted as a starting point. That is how I would answer my hon. Friend's second question. The White Paper must be seen as a starting point for further work. There is much more to do, and if the transformation that we need in our industry and society is to be achieved it will not be done overnight.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend the citizens charter to the regulatory authorities.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): Public regulatory authorities, like all areas of the public sector, are covered by the citizens charter.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that there is increasing concern about the fact that the regulators of the privatised utilities are acting like tin gods, whose decisions are not accountable to Parliament or challengeable by ordinary citizens except by cumbersome legal proceedings? The Ofgas decision to break up British Gas will mean higher transportation costs to areas such as Wales compared with the north-east of England near the North sea gas shelf. In other decisions, competitive access has been given a higher priority than the interests of consumers and indeed the strategic national interest. Surely a review of the role of regulators is needed. Should not they be covered by the citizens charter and be answerable to Parliament?

Mr. Davis: Before I address the nub of the hon. Gentleman's question, may I say that opening up industries to competition is in the interests of the consumer and has been the best guarantee of those interests. First, the regulators must operate within the regulatory framework laid down by Parliament. Secondly, the director-generals' performance of their statutory duties is subject to judicial review—I think the hon. Gentleman referred to that. Thirdly, the legislation requires utilities to have a licence and authorisation from the Secretary of State or a director before they can operate as utilities. Fourthly. directors are appointed by and are answerable, in broad terms, to the Secretary of State. If a director does not carry out his duties satisfactorily he can be replaced. Finally, those director-generals can also be called before a Select Committee of the House.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulators have done an excellent job in applying charter principles to the privatised utilities? Furthermore, does he recall that those industries have performed much better since they have been privatised and that the Labour party opposed privatisation, which has brought so many benefits to the people of this country?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I shall give a couple of examples. British Telecom's prices have fallen by one third since 1984 and 96 per cent. of call boxes work, compared with 75 per cent. previously. British Gas prices for domestic users have fallen 13 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Water!"] There are calls of "Water" from Opposition Members—the same people who would complain if the pollution levels of our beaches and rivers were not dealt with. The money for dealing with those problems must come from somewhere and it comes from the profits and capital of the water companies.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister must be aware that the real issue involves accountability for the former public utilities and the watchdogs of the utilities. Some parts of the country have been severely disadvantaged by the differential impact of the clean-up programmes, but it is not possible to request an Adjournment debate in the House on the issue because it is no longer deemed to be the responsibility of any Minister. As citizens charter Minister, will he try to find a way around that problem?

Mr. Davis: It is a matter for Madam Speaker rather than me, but I imagine that it would be perfectly possible

to have an Adjournment debate about the regulators' behaviour, which is precisely the hon. Gentleman's point. Ofwat comments in the past few days on the effect of the clean-up on costs are an example of Ofwat exercising its powers and responsibilities properly.

Mr. Fisher: Does not the Minister understand that the problem with Ofwat and other regulatory organisations is that they have no teeth? I and hon. Members from both sides of the House have taken cases to Ofwat, which has eventually found in favour of our constituents, and then the board—in my case Severn Trent—has said, "So what, Ofwat—nothing will happen and nothing will change." The problem is that the regulators have no teeth.

Mr. Davis: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman speak to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who said that the regulators had too many teeth and too much power. The regulators can change the rules under which the licence works. If they cannot come to an agreement with the utilities, the matter can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to provide back-up support.

Mr. Riddick: Have not the regulators been just a component part of what has proved to be one of the Government's greatest successes: the privatisation of state-owned industries? Have not new private sector management and entrepreneurial skills been introduced to old, monolithic industries? Is not the flotation of further British Telecom shares on the stock market the most recent example of one of the Government's greatest successes, privatisation?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes his case very well. Popular capitalism continues to be popular in this country and will be for the rest of the decade.

Market Testing

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of market-testing exercises has led to a reduction in costs.

Mr. Waldegrave: Information collected from Departments over the five years to 1990–91 suggests that more than 80 per cent. of market tests resulted in savings. Savings have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost of the activity. Even if a market test fails to bring about savings, it is likely to lead to an improvement in the quality of the service being provided.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I wonder whether he has seen this month's edition of the Local Government Chronicle—a newspaper which I read avidly every time I go to sleep. It mentions that competitive tendering in local government has brought greater savings in the second round of competitive tendering. Does my right hon. Friend agree that similar savings could accrue from market testing in central Government?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the Local Government Chronicle has such a soporific effect on my hon. Friend. The report was accurate and was also carried in the Financial Times. It also accords with evidence from Berkshire county council, which revealed that, in many cases, the savings on the second placement of a contract were greater than those on the first placement. I believe


that, in future, contractors for central Government services will also bring more savings the second time the contract goes out to tender.

Dr. Howells: Has the Chancellor had a chance to read any of the recent Public Accounts Committee reports about some of the problems that the Government are confronting over managerial consultancies when it comes to market testing? Does he agree that the latter offers an unparalleled opportunity for a descent into graft and corruption on the Italian scale?

Mr. Waldegrave: Any report by the PAC must be very carefully examined and there must be a proper response to it, but the most recent one was about a service run in-house, Forward Civil Service Catering, showing that problems can arise both in the public sector and outside it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What advice is the Department giving organisations going through market testing on dealing with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, which seem to be causing us some problems?

Mr. Waldegrave: After consultation with other Departments, my Department issued guidance on that. As a matter of fact, after a period of delay early in the process, central Government Departments are now finding that TUPE is much less of a bar to the market-testing programme. Indeed, several successful market tests have been carried out in cases in which TUPE has covered the staff and they have worked perfectly well.

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made on the Government's market-testing programme.

Mr. Waldegrave: Market-testing programmes for the period to September 1993 are making good progress. I shall report on the outcome of these as soon as possible after the period.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has again made claims for cost savings of about 25 per cent. for market testing. Is he aware that independent research carried out by the Audit Commission and by the university of Birmingham on behalf of the Department of the Environment—research into market testing in local government—has shown cost savings of between 6 and 7 per cent., or about one quarter of what he claims for the civil service? Will he therefore tell the House on what independent research his claim is based; or, if there is no such independent research, and the claim is unreliable, will he assure the House that he will authorise independent research into the impact of market testing in the civil service—before he opens his big mouth again and makes far-fetched claims that cannot be substantiated?

Mr. Waldegrave: The figure of 25 per cent. is an assessment of the relatively small programme in central Government to date and it simply reports the facts. I am well aware of the lnlogov report, which showed 6 or 7 per cent. savings in compulsory competitive tendering for local government. The hon. Gentleman will recall that one such local government body was Bristol city council in my constituency, where there was a good deal of trouble with its CCT and there had to be re-tendering. Many Labour local authorities resisted the process and wasted a lot of money; they did not enter into the exercise with the spirit

and loyalty that the central Government civil service has shown. The hon. Gentleman would be ill-advised to use those local government figures for CCT when assessing the central Government programme.

Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that market testing is extremely effective in the private sector and that it is a running cost, not an expense? All these myths about the inability of market testing to benefit companies or the civil service are ridiculous. We have to produce products and services that people want, at a competitive price and with the right quality, and we have to provide after-sales service. If we got all those things right, would not we beat the world?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. What is more, as the best of the public sector can beat the private sector, it should not he frightened of the process. There have been plenty of winning in-house bids. Instead of trying to resist the whole process, through Opposition spokesmen, the public sector unions should show more confidence in their members by recognising that they will win many of the bids.

Mr. Winnick: On market testing, will not the real test come on Thursday when the Government face almost inevitable defeat? Perhaps the Chancellor should direct his mind to that top priority for the Cabinet.

Mr. Waldegrave: That seems to go a little wide of my responsibilities, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his characteristic ingenuity.

Public Services

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to encourage more public services to introduce a purchaser-provider split.

Mr. David Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for extending the purchaser-provider split. It is this concept, the identification of the needs and wishes of the customer and clarity about the role and responsibility of the contractor, which underpins all our public service reforms. My Department remains committed to building on the progress made in Government agencies, the national health service, our schools and local authorities, and it is delivering better results.

Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that left-of-centre commentators, including Professor John Stewart of the Municipal Journal of recent mention, have endorsed the purchaser-provider split as a means of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our public services? Does he agree that it is about time that the Labour party came off the fence and endorsed it, too?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not seen that entry in the Municipal Journal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), perhaps I sleep too well. The best example of such acceptance by thoughtful commentators of the left is by John Willman. Writing in the "Fabian Review" he identified three virtuous consequences of the purchaser-provider split. He said:
First, it allows the purchaser … to become the advocate of the consumer rather than the defender of the producer … Second, it forces both sides to define the nature of the service and the quality standards which are to be provided. This locus


on standards and outcomes is essential if the quality of public services is to be improved … Third and most important, it allows the purchaser to buy in services from the private sector.

I recommend that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen learn from their colleagues.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to report to the House on the delicate negotiations being conducted by Mr. Rolf Ekeus on behalf of the United Nations in Baghdad?

Madam Speaker: No, I have not been informed that any Minister wishes to make a statement.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help. On the first page of today's Order Paper there are 13 Welsh Office questions. Seven of them are from Conservative Members and six are from Labour Members. There are 38 Welsh Members.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): My mother is Welsh. [Interruption.]

Mr. Powell: On numerous occasions, I have been reminded that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. One of your predecessors, Viscount Tonypandy, used his influence to inform the House that Welsh Members have only rare opportunities to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, usually on a Monday and usually once a month. 
Surely you could use your influence, Madam Speaker, either to change the computer to a Welsh one or to persuade Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies not to ask questions. Today, five Conservative Members and three Labour Members were called in the 35 minutes. However, 11 Welsh Members who were in their places did not have an opportunity to put their questions to the Minister. Will you use your ingenuity to devise a different system, so that Welsh Members have at least an opportunity to present their constituency problems?

Madam Speaker: I make it quite clear that I am not prepared to tamper with the ballot or with the computers in the House to see that some Members rather than others receive priority.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished. 
On today's Order Paper, only 22 questions were tabled for the Secretary of State for Wales. Usually, 30 questions are printed. Insufficient questions were handed in to the Table Office.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. A substantive point has arisen. The Secretary of State for Wales has umbrella responsibilities for subjects such as education, roads, housing, local government and the Welsh Development Agency, which is of considerable importance. He is responsible for a whole gamut of subjects. Because Conservative Members with English constituencies put down questions, they dictate the subjects that are to be answered. Notwithstanding the fact that we can put

supplementaries, that limits the areas that can be discussed. That limits the oversight of the functions of the Welsh Office and its democratic answerability. 
Is there any way in addition to Question Time—which clearly English Members want to get in on—such as additional time for questions in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, in which Welsh Members can get answerability from the Welsh Office?

Madam Speaker: I can answer the hon. Gentleman only by saying that he did not table a question today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. Indeed, 50 per cent. of his parliamentary party were called to put supplementaries.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Who is next? I am now crossing the Chamber and I call Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we have some form of clocking on and off, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has often suggested? Two weeks ago, very few Welsh Labour Members turned up for social security questions, despite their being of interest to their constituents. They were thus not here to table Welsh questions for today and have only themselves to blame.

Madam Speaker: Whether or not we clock on, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to be the convenor.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Welsh questions, you ruled as unparliamentary the expression "stool pigeon", as it is your right to do. The matter can be confusing at times. I refer hon. Members to pages 381–2 of "Erskine May" so tht they can decide what is an unparliamentary expression. 
"Erskine May" used to contain a list of unparliamentary words such as "blackguard", "curmudgeon", "dog", "rotter", "cad" and the and all the other words that we could apply collectively to Conservative Members. That list has now been removed, but it would help the House — I hope that this is a helpful point of order—if that list were reinstated. I have a number of words that I should like to run by you, and it would be helpful if they could appear in "Erskine May".

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has often used picturesque language. However, I feel that certain expressions are wholly unacceptable in a House of grown-up individuals who should be able to express themselves without using mediocre language.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), Madam Speaker. There is a genuine sense of anger about what has happened today. The views expressed by my hon. Friend reflect the views of many Labour Members when English Members of Parliament come here, not to pursue matters of concern to them, but to shield the Secretary of State from questions put by Welsh Members. 
I very much endorse the view expressed by my hon. Friend Ogmore because of the first five questions on today's Order Paper were tabled by English Members with no constituency interest in Wales. Six of the top 10 questions were tabled by English Conservative Members.


Only three Welsh Members, during Welsh Question Time, had the opportunity to raise matters with the Secretary of State relating to questions that they had tabled. 
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to give careful consideration to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others. I believe that there is now a case either for extending Welsh questions—perhaps transferring the forum in which we can ask them—or using your good offices with the usual channels to get the Government to accept that, unless they are prepared to ask English Members voluntarily to desist from disrupting Welsh Question Time, the only conclusion must be that the Secretary of State is not prepared to face questions from Welsh Members.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to extend Welsh questions, that is a matter for the usual channels, and he must take up the matter there. He also raised a point about the ballot. If the ballot system is to be changed, that must be agreed upon by the whole House. He knows that questions are not selected by me or by the Minister; they are selected by ballot. 
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, however many hon. Members representing English constituencies tabled questions. during the whole of Welsh Question Time only one Member from the Opposition Benches was called who did not represent a Welsh constituency. The remainder of supplementary questions were from Welsh Members.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled a question, which became Question No. 9. I was only the third Welsh Member in the top 10, but we did not reach even Question No. 9. I did not seek to be called to ask a supplementary question on an earlier question, because I assumed that we would at least reach Question No. 9. In view of the imbalance, may I suggest that you should have endeavoured to move on, so that Members representing Welsh constituencies were called?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman reflects and reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that is precisely what I did. If hon. Members take a long time to ask questions and Ministers take a long time to answer them, we shall not get through the Order Paper.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should not mince words. As millions and millions of pounds of United Kingdom taxpayers' money goes to Wales for regeneration—and Wales is doing awfully well—we are entitled to a say—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I remind hon. Members that they are taking precious guillotine time.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I was the person who called the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) a "stool pigeon" but, on your instructions, I withdrew my comment unequivocally. There is a feeling, however, that, because of his inadequacies, the Secretary of State for Wales is being protected, and that his Parliamentary Private Secretary or someone else is running around

looking for a person consumed with ambition to table questions in order to protect the right hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and all the others—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I do my best to protect the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he does not get into difficulties, and I asked him to withdraw. I am very much the hon. Gentleman's protector, and I shall take care of him in future, too.

Mr. Roy Hughes: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that I have spent some years in the House and, indeed, that I am a member of your Chairmen's Panel. It seems to me that Welsh questions have become rather farcical. I remind you that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that, when in your Chair, Mr. Speaker Thomas, now Viscount Tonypandy, told English Conservative Members that he was reluctant to call them, and that Welsh questions had been instituted so that Welsh Members could question the respective Welsh Ministers, which I thought perfectly good advice.

Madam Speaker: As I said earlier in answer to a point of order, if the hon. Gentleman reflects and reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that is what has happened. I can understand his disappointment. He had tabled Question No. 12; if hon. Members and Ministers did not take so long over their questions and answers, we might proceed much more quickly through the Order Paper.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I was one of the victims of this afternoon's Question Time. I drew Question No. 11 but, unfortunately, six of the first 10 questions were from English Conservative Members. My question was highly topical, being about the Welsh Development Agency, and other hon. Members would have liked to contribute. 
May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to comments by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for The Wirral (Mr. Hunt), at a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff on 8 March this year? He also acknowledged that there was a democratic deficit in Wales, and envisaged a larger role for the Welsh Grand Committee. Simultaneously, the Secretary of State for Scotland was talking about an enlarged role for Scottish Question Time. Would you please look into these possibilities?

Madam Speaker: These are not matters for me. They are matters for the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Gentleman might like to take his points there.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I assure you that my question on the Order Paper was not planted by anyone else? It reflected my interest in heart disease. If Opposition Members are not interested in the state of the health of the Welsh nation, they should be.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. We will now make some progress. I have a statement to make which I am sure will he of interest to hon. Members.

Adjournment Motions

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday 27 July, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Wednesday. A ballot will be held on Thursday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

DISEASES OF ANIMALS

That the Diseases of Animals (Therapeutic Substances) (Revocation) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, 1331) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [15th December] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the Order [15th December], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 1 to 6
6.00 p.m


Nos. 7 to 24
7.00 p.m


Nos. 25 to 177
8.00 p.m


Nos. 178 to 253
9.30 p.m


Nos. 254 to 333
10.30 p.m


Remaining amendments
midnight

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and, subject to sub-paragraph (2), shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by the Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question. That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) In the case of proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at midnight the Speaker shall, instead of putting any Question required by sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii) above, put


forthwith with respect to all of the designated Amendments which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Extra time

3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting for two hours after Ten o'clock.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4.—(1) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I start by apologising to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his absence from this debate. I am sure that all hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend is indisposed and is unable to be here, as he would very much have wished.

I do not want to spend a great deal of time introducing this supplemental order. Even those hon. Members who enjoy the occasional wrangle over procedural matters will agree that our time would be much better spent by discussing the substance of the amendments made to the Bill in another place.

We have already spent an enormous amount of time on this vital Bill, and we are about to spend another eight hours or more on it this evening. A timetable is an essential tool if the business of the House is to be conducted efficiently, not least if we are to ensure that there is no delay in implementing important aspects of the Bill for the next educational term. To that end, we will be seeking Royal Assent before the end of the month—provided, of course, that the House accepts this order, and provided that we complete all the parliamentary stages in time.

We have already spent 150 hours discussing the Bill —including, at the Opposition's request, two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and a further two days on Report. In addition, the other place has given the Bill 114 hours of close scrutiny, including an additional day in Committee, which was again requested by the Opposition. That is a not insignificant amount of parliamentary time, especially when we consider that parts II and IV of the Bill are largely re-enactments, with a little tidying up, of earlier education legislation.

To help the House, I should take a few moments to categorise the 570 or so Government amendments made to the Bill in another place, which we will consider today. I can deal with rather more than half the lords amendments in one fell swoop. More than 300 of the Government amendments approved by the other place are purely technical consequential, drafting or tidying-up changes flowing directly from the Bill as it left this House. Such changes are inevitable in a Bill of this size and importance. I will give some examples to set that in context.

Amendment No. 395 revises the index to the Bill. That is an important element, but I very much doubt whether it is worthy of debate. Amendment No. 515 updates the definition of "school" in the Value Added Tax Act 1983 to take account of the definition in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

We also have 16 purely technical amendments on middle schools; 23 amendments to ensure that local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools, as appropriate, can pay for the provision of places at boarding and independent schools, so as to secure continuity with LEAs' existing ability to make such arrangements; 34 technical amendments to provide for the transfer of schools to new sites; and 40 amendments to provide for the detailed arrangements for grant-maintained school premises, covering the conveying of interest to trustees, the conditions of grant for premises and the details to be included in proposals.

I can already hear some hon. Members—I cannot, actually, but that is what it says in my notes—saying, "What about the rest?" As for the rest, they flow from three sources first, the White Paper. That included, as I am sure all hon. Members will recall, proposed new


arrangements for education, as the jargon goes, otherwise than at school. That of course, caters for the most vulnerable pupils on our schools.

We wanted to make sure that the proposals were absolutely right and took full account of an extended consultation period. That is why the introduction of these vital proposals took place in the other place, where indeed they received thorough scrutiny, as we would expect. Secondly, we made commitments in this House to amend the Bill in a number of respects. We promised amendments on grant-maintained acquisition, to shorten the ballot period, and on religious education and collective worship.

Thirdly, we have drafted many amendments as a result of points raised in the other place. For example, we have extended the range of options available to schools willing to enter into grouped arrangements. We have brought forward amendments to ensure that head teachers are properly informed about matters relating to their schools —amendments that are supported by the National Association of Head Teachers—amendments relating to securing value for money in grant-maintained schools, and, of course, amendments to clause 1.

Many amendments are the product of fruitful negotiations between my Department and the Churches. They reaffirm the importance of a continuing partnership between Church and state in the provision of public education. All those amendments are before us for consideration.

It is important that we have a timetable motion. I need hardly remind hon. Members who were unfortunate enough to have to endure the snail's pace of progress in Committee before Christmas of the lengths to which some hon. Members—I will not mention any names, of course —will go to avoid serious debate about education, and even evade careful scrutiny of the Bill. But that is in the past.

We have much to do in implementing the Bill, and there are reforms in it which we must not delay. For too long, too many schools have simply shrugged their shoulders at the problems which are clearly besetting them, and are causing them to fail to give their pupils an acceptable standard of education. We cannot allow that to continue.

Part V allows for a range of new measures to be taken when an inspection reveals that a school is at risk. The first inspections will take place this autumn, and we are determined that rapid and effective action should be taken as soon as possible thereafter. That is why we shall seek Royal Assent before the end of the month, provided that the House agrees the timetable motion and dispatches the business in the motion this evening.

The order is essential if we are to complete our proceedings on the legislation in a sensible and effective manner. The Bill puts in place a new framework for the organisation of our education system. It offers a new start to our most vulnerable children—those in failing schools, those with special educational needs and those whose needs cannot be met in school. I look forward to the proceedings following the motion, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Opposition object very strongly to the guillotine motion. The Minister is acknowledging that the Government are trying to rush through many amendments without proper consideration

—without any consideration at all, in some respects. The Government are making a farce of parliamentary procedures by asking the House to debate more than 580 amendments in eight and half hours. That works out at 53 seconds per amendment. How on earth can the House of Commons be expected to carry out its responsiblities with such a time scale? Of course, that is assuming that we will have no votes on any of the amendments. That is not proper parliamentary scrutiny; that is not what our constituents sent us here to do; it reduces our proceedings to a farce. 
That is typical of the way in which the Government have behaved throughout the passage of the Education Bill. The Bill is based on a White Paper which was published on 28 July. That White Paper was supposed to be the basis for consultation. The consultation period opened during the parliamentary recess when schools were on holiday, and it finished at the end of September. In other words, the consultation was a total sham, and, since that time, the Government have proved that they have riot responded to the submissions that were made in that tight time scale. Indeed, the Government have not even published those responses, despite requests to do so. 
The junior Minister said that this was a vital Bill. He acknowledged that the Opposition had been keen to press for as much time as possible to debate its vital provisions. We take legislation seriously. We take our responsibilities to scrutinise legislation seriously. That is why it is totally outrageous and unacceptable for such a time scale to be imposed at this stage. 
The Bill was introduced in glowing terms by the Secretary of State for Education, who claimed that he had written it almost by himself. But he then failed to go on the Committee considering the Bill, which shows that he was treating the House with contempt and not treating the legislation as it deserved and required. 
The contempt for parliamentary scrutiny went deep. This is the longest Education Bill ever to be presented to the House, yet it had the shortest debate in Committee. When the guillotine was imposed, it was the tightest ever imposed on any Education Bill. It allowed only two days for Report and is allowing us only one day—today—to debate 580 Lords amendments. 
The timetable is especially outrageous because many of the issues on which the House has been asked to come to a conclusion this afternoon have been debated only in the House of Lords— they have never been debated in the House or in Committee. It may well be that some amendments will be accepted and some measures will become law without one word being spoken about them in the House. That is why the guillotine is a contempt of our procedures and of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it is typical of the arrogance and the attitude of Education Ministers. 
The amendments that concern us are numerous. It is impossible to list all the areas where substantial changes have been made in another place, but the junior Minister mentioned some of them. There are some issues on which we hope to have a limited debate—because of the guillotine—later this evening. However, many issues may not be debated at all. I want to remind the Minister of some of the issues which have not been debated in the House or in Committee but which have been introduced by the House of Lords and should get significant time. 
Amendments have been tabled on corporal punishment. the making of new curriculum orders, the imposition


of a ballot if there is a tied result, the reduction in the time scale for opting out and the new measures introduced by the Government to tip the scales even more in favour of pushing schools in the direction of opting out. I was interested to read in the 16 July edition of Education:
The Department for Education is abandoning its 1,500 attainment target for GM schools".
In the future, the Department will not put pressure on schools. That is an admission on the part of the Government that it has not been as easy as they thought to persuade schools to take the GM route.

Mr. Forth: The truth is that that was always a projected figure—a target has never been mentioned. We are still confident that the projected figure will be reached at about the same time, so there will be no change whatever in that.

Mrs. Taylor: The Government are so confident that their projection will be reached that they have manoeuvred and put constraints on everyone who opposed a school becoming grant-maintained, and put everything in favour of those who advocated grant-maintained status. The amendment that limits the amount of spending of those who are opposed to GM status, while not limiting the spending of those who are promoting GM status, is a clear example of what has been happening. 
There are other serious issues that should not become a matter of political debate but should be a matter of constructive consideration by the House. However, they could well be squeezed in our debates this evening. I am thinking of the suggestions on pupil referral units, the abolition of indefinite exclusions and other matters of genuine concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, where improvements could well be made to the Bill if parliamentary procedures allowed it and if we were not so short of time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: As my hon. Friend knows, unfortunately I was not involved in the Committee or substantially involved in the Report stage. Will she confirm that the first intimation that Members of Parliament or, indeed, the education public had of the Government's intention to disagree with some of the amendments made in another place was at the weekend or even this very morning? If that is so, does it not show the contempt in which the Government hold the education processes which are the responsibility of government?

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to make that point. Significant amendments were made in another place which affect the rights of pupils with special needs, acknowledge the need for local authorities to have significant planning responsibilities and acknowledge the importance of nursery education. I hope that there will be full time to debate all of those issues, but there cannot be full time for all the issues in the timetable proposed by the Government. It would be difficult for us even to vote on all the issues which received so much time and consideration in another place and on which such constructive decisions were made. That is a clear example of the problems that arise with a timetable such as that proposed, covering issues which are so vital. 
The House will also face difficulties later this evening with the Lords amendments on sex education. Many of us will have received letters from a wide range of organisations which are alarmed at the Government's

proposals for changes in the law on sex education. I have with me a collection of matters from the National Children's Bureau, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the British Medical Association, Norwich health authority and the Royal College of Nursing. Many of those organisations feel not only that they have not been consulted about the changes, but that they have a real interest in the proposals and could cast some light and give the benefit of their experience in establishing the way forward. 
It seems that a minority in another place made a fuss about sex education. The Minister there, possibly without consulting other Ministers in the Department and certainly, I suspect, without consulting Ministers in the Department of Health, tabled amendments on sex education which simply have not been widely discussed with parents, teachers, governors or the medical profession. That is a clear example of the wrong way to go about making decisions on vital matters, but it is typical of what the Government have done with the Bill. 
We are short of time even to discuss the guillotine motion. If the Bill is as vital as the Minister suggests, we should not discuss it on a time scale which allows us only 53 seconds for each amendment. Such an approach and a motion such as that which the Government have tabled today show the Government's contempt for parents, teachers, governors and everyone involved in education who expect better scrutiny of legislation than the Government are prepared to allow.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I wish to speak on the allocation of time motion, because it is particularly unsatisfactory in respect of sex education, on which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has just touched. 
It seems inevitable that this evening we shall not have a debate or vote on the amendments on sex education. The amendments have been placed at the end of a series of groups that are due to be debated between 9.30 and 10.30 pm. There are four groups of amendments in that series. The opening amendments may be technical, but there are three subjects for debate, and it is inevitable that we shall not have an opportunity to debate and vote separately on the extremely important issue of sex education. I regard that as extraordinary, because the Government have proposed immensely important changes in national policy on sex education. 
The Government said in the other place—where it was approved by a vote—that teaching about HIV, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases will be taken out of the national curriculum and transferred to sex education outside the national curriculum. Sex education will become compulsory for schools, but parents will be able to withdraw their children from sex education. Those are important changes. They were introduced at a late stage in the legislative process. They should be debated in the House today.

Mr. Forth: I remind my hon. Friend that such motions are tabled broadly in agreement with the Opposition, and we have adhered to such a convention. Therefore, there has been no conspiracy or fix, in terms of the motion's shape, that may lead to what my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Howarth: I note what my hon. Friend says, and shall return to it later,

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Opposition are totally opposed to a guillotine motion limiting debate of the Bill o one day. We believe that a range of issues need discussing, and that has been our case all along.

Mr. Howarth: Again, I note what the hon. Lady says. 
Many people have strong views on sex education. Some think that a Mephistophelean group whom they refer to as "the sex educators" are systematically eroding family values. Some think—it is a view that I respect—that sex education is such a sensitive and private matter that they should be entitled to deal with it within the family, and that teachers should not deal with it for their children. Some feel that sex education in schools is an affront to their sincerely held Christian values. Others disagree with that view, and stongly believe that good-quality sex education in our schools is vital. They care every bit as much about family values, and they too would be concerned about so-called "value-free" education. 
I hold strong views on the matter, and the strongest is that it is our responsibility, as far as we can possibly fulfil it, to ensure that no one dies of ignorance. "Don't die of ignorance" has been the theme of the Department of Health's important, valuable and, in many ways, effective public education campaign. 
When I was a Minister in the then Department of Education and Science, I happened to have responsibility for sex education, and worked closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health. But I wonder whether my successors are now working as closely with their colleagues in the Department of Health. It is incredible that Ministers responsible for health should have connived at a policy that takes education about HIV and AIDS out of the national curriculum. 
The Department of Health's document, "The Health of the Nation", suggested that HIV was the greatest public health challenge of this century. One of the pillars of the Department of Health's strategy in relation to HIV and AIDS is sex education. The Department is due to report on the progress of the policies of "The Health of the Nation" this September, and I fancy that officials will now be working hard during August to rewrite their report before it is published in September. 
The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 set in place the essential lineaments of our sex education policy hitherto. It was amplified and clarified in circular 11/87, and further developed in the Education Reform Act 1988. 
In November 1991, the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made a speech at a conference organised by the National Aids Trust in London, where he rightly said:
The challenge presented by HIV and AIDS is one that everyone must share. So far there is no cure and no prospect of a cure.
He went on to stress that the education service clearly has a significant part to play in achieving what must be our overall aim—to ensure that everyone is fully informed about the nature of HIV and AIDS, the risks that they present and what they can do to prevent their spread. He added:
Education about HIV and AIDS will be effective only if all those who work in or with the education service accept their share of the responsibility and are sending out the same messages.

As a consequence, in August 1992—less than a year ago —the science orders of the national curriculum were amended to ensure that they incorporated the physical and emotional changes that take place in adolescence, and that the moral responsibilities that should accompany growing sexual maturity formed part of a young person's education within the national curriculum. 
The Government's policy was again amplified in a draft circular issued in April 1993. The covering letter to that draft circular emphasised the need for effective sex education within a clear moral framework. I shall not quote at length from the document, Madam Speaker, because time is short, but it seems to me that the contents of the circular should satisfy those—surely including every hon. Member—who believe that there should be sex education, and that it should be in a moral context, promoting the values of family life and a sense of moral responsibility. That is, of course, already stipulated in section 46 of the Education Act 1986 and reinforced in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that sex education and education about HIV and Aids cannot be compartmentalised and taken out of the teaching in a school? Does my hon. Friend agree that they must be part of the ethos and teaching of the school, and should go through the school's curriculum?

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to intervene during hon. Members' speeches, but I must remind the House that this is a motion dealing with the allocation of time. Hon. Members should he debating whether they agree or disagree with the allocation of time, and should not become involved in a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Howarth: I will heed your warning, Madam Speaker. I am trying to explain why I consider that it is singularly unfortunate that the motion will most likely deny us the opportunity of debating the subject. I am trying to explain the importance of the subject. 
Between 1986 and the spring of this year, there was a consistent development of policy in what I believe to he the right direction. More has been needed in terms of guidance, training and support for teachers and in terms of evening up local education authority standards, but it was right that every child should have the opportunity to be taught the facts and should be enabled, through his or her educational experience, to reflect upon the responsibilities associated with those facts. That was at the heart of the Government's policy, and that seemed proper. 
Then an extraordinary thing happened. At the end of June and the beginning of July, the Government changed their policy. On 6 July—10 days before the consultation period on the draft circular was due to be completed—we were told that the policy was to be quite different. During the Third Reading debate in the House of Lords on 6 July, my noble Friend the Minister of State said that she believed that it was a "strange phenomenon" and "extraordinary" that education about HIV and AIDS had been, as she put it, "slipped into" the national curriculum in 1992. 
My noble Friend also referred to "deviant behaviour". She went on to say that there had been a moral decline, and asked whether that was possibly because of some of the sex education in schools. 
In that spirit, the Government have introduced three changes which are of the utmost importance and should be debated today. I believe that one of the changes is good, while the other two are bad. It is good that the Government propose that all schools should now be required to teach sex education. That builds on the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. However, I believe that it is bad for the Government to propose that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education. 
I believe that it is bad also that sex education which goes beyond the biological aspects of human reproduction —particularly education about HIV and AIDS—should be removed from the national curriculum. I note also that, since April 1 this year, the Government have discontinued the funding of health education co-ordinators. 
Why is it so bad to deprive children of the right to be educated about HIV and AIDS? It is bad because AIDS kills. It ineluctably kills any individual who contracts the virus. That is why there is a quite exceptional and heavy responsibility upon us in relation to educating young people about AIDS. It is vital that every young person is informed and thinks about the peril. Otherwise, some young people, and their partners, and the partners of their partners, may die from ignorance. That is an unpleasant reality, but it is reality that ought to be faced. 
I have every sympathy with those who wish to preserve childhood innocence for as long as possible, and I have no quarrel with the Government's policy in relation to primary education—that in that case the decision whether to provide sex education should be a matter for the governors, and that parents should have a right to withdraw their children. 
But by the age of 11 the innocence of a great many children is sadly already fairly frayed; they hear a great deal in the media, and they hear their elders talk. The chances are that they will become confused and even alarmed by the smattering of understanding that they have gained of HIV and AIDS. They are on the threshold of adolescence and of sexual independence. 
The statistics that we ought to consider in this context are quite grim, and are certainly food for thought: 35 per cent. of under-16-year-olds and 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds have had full sexual intercourse. A third do not use contraceptives in a sexual encounter with a new partner. Some 20 per cent. of HIV infections in Britain are in the 15 to 25-year-old age group. 
The proportion of HIV infection derived from heterosexual activity, setting aside infection associated with drug abuse, has risen—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard from the hon. Gentleman why he feels that the allocation of time motion should be accepted. I need to hear reasons.

Mr. Howarth: I think that you will agree, Madam Speaker, that the facts that I am briefly stating are of the greatest importance in our national life and for the future of our children. We are debating an Education Bill—

Madam Speaker: Order. They may well be important, but we are dealing with a technical motion concerning the allocation of time. I want to hear from hon. Members why the allocation of time motion should be accepted.

Mr. Howarth: I am seeking to argue that there should not be an allocation of time, Madam Speaker—and certainly not an allocation of time that precludes our debating this extremely important subject. In emphasising the importance of the subject, I shall also be explaining why I am making the case. 
The incidence of heterosexually derived HIV infections has risen, from 2 per cent. in 1985 to 28 per cent. now. That is why it is so important that our children and young people should be taught about the disease. Britain also has an exceptionally high proportion of teenage pregnancies: 8,500 under-l6-year-old girls become pregnant each year. 
Parents may avert their gaze from those realities, but they are facts and they ought to be faced. Notwithstanding the statistics that I have just mentioned, in consequence of the very positive health education policy that we have had in Britain we have so far had a relatively low rate of HIV infection compared with that in other European countries. But that serves only to underline the importance of sex education and the importance of our debating it today. 
To provide sex education is not to condone promiscuous behaviour, let alone to encourage it. In support of that assertion, I should like to offer the House some figures from the 19 studies recently reviewed by the World Health Organisation in connection with its global programme on AIDS in Geneva. The 19 studies indicate a clear trend. 
No study found evidence of sex education leading to earlier or increased sexual activity among the young people exposed to it. Six studies found that sex education led either to a delay in the onset of sexual activity or to a decrease in sexual activity overall. Ten studies found that sex education increased the adoption of safer practices by sexually active youths. It is very important, Madam Speaker, that time should be made available today to enable the House to absorb those important realities. 
Moreover, on the basis of its systematic international comparative studies, the World Health Organisation tells us that school-based sex education programmes are more effective when they are given before young people become sexually active and when they emphasise skills and social norms rather than knowledge. 
If the state has a duty to educate at all, it cannot now duck responsibilty in this matter. The Government have already legislated to provide a moral context for sex education. If we are dissatisfied, the answer is to improve the nature and quality of sex education, and to match the standards that are already set forth as aspirations in policy. 
I do not believe that the rights of parents in these matters outweigh the rights of children or the rights of society. A study by the Policy Studies Institute a few years ago suggested that 96 per cent. of parents wanted their children to receive sex education at school. The other 4 per cent.—this might be debated later today if we have the opportunity to defeat the guillotine motion—do not have the right to risk an increase in the spread of a lethal virus. 
I do not believe—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested in another place—that those who withdraw their children from sex education will always be discerning. Some will be highly conscientious people, but


some will be prejudiced, some will be ignorant and some, I fear, will be those who abuse their children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has put that case to us. I do not wish to be melodramatic or alarmist, but I respect the views and fears of the NSPCC. 
The 4 per cent. also do not have the right to undermine the education of the children of the 96 per cent. of parents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who stressed the importance of sex education being integrated across the curriculum as a whole. It is meaningless to contemplate that it should not be so. 
When being taught English literature, children are studying relationships; when being taught geography, they are considering the realities of life in modern Africa. It is totally absurd to suggest that their national curriculum studies should exclude them from awareness of HIV and AIDS. 
The rights of children need to be considered, as distinct from the rights of the parents. That principle was upheld by the House of Lords in the judgment on the Gillick case, and it is also set out in chapter 41, part I(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989, as well as in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which we are a signatory. 
Society has the right to be protected from the spread of a lethal virus, just as it has the right to be protected from lethal driving or any other homicidal activity. Nor is it appropriate to draw an analogy it would be important to debate the issue later this evening if the guillotine motion allowed us to do so—with religious education, as the Government used to recognise, and as Ministers argued in the context of the Education Act 1986. I am angry about the amendment and about the guillotine motion. This is no proper way in which to legislate. 
My hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested that teaching about HIV and AIDS had been slipped into the national curriculum. I submit that the amendment was slipped into the Bill in the House of Lords. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, they have no constituents. The proposed change goes way beyond their proper responsibility as a revising Chamber—it is a major change. 
On 6 July, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch said that the House of Commons would have the opportunity to consider and debate the subject. She said:
That is the democratic process".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1993; Vol. 547, c. 1320.]
However, 580 amendments have been tabled, and we shall be lucky if many more than six are debated and voted on. Under the terms of the motion, the rest will receive a blanket approval. 
The amendment to which I refer deals with whether young people may live or die. The national curriculum is the most cost-effective and far-reaching method of sex education we have: it is wrong that crucial aspects of sex education should be taken out of it, and wrong that the House should not have the opportunity to debate it. 
Why are we to have no vote? Let me return to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Dewsbury. In my time in government, it was the custom of Ministers to offer those on the Opposition Front Bench a choice of the key subjects that were to be debated under the terms of the motion. The motion was negotiated between the two Front

Benches. The House should be told who is responsible for preventing us from debating and voting on the issue of sex education this evening. 
I will give way again to the hon. Member for Dewsbury if she will tell me whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary offered her the opportunity of a debate at the beginning of one of the blocks of amendments, under the timetable motion. If she was offered a choice, did she choose to decline that opportunity, and if so, why?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No offer or suggestion was made that arrangements for that debate should be changed. If the Government were not to disagree with the Lords amendment in the previous section, there could be time for that debate.

Mr. Howarth: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would confirm what has been said.

Mr. Forth: I do not think that we should become involved in an undignified wrangle. To clarify the matter, however, let me say that I—in the normal way, and as I have done throughout the Commons proceedings on the Bill—offered the Opposition a draft timetable, and welcomed their suggestions for change. No alterations were suggested, apart from some minor changes at the beginning.

Mr. Howarth: I shall say no more, except that I believe the Government have made a grievous mistake in introducing the amendment, and that it was wrong to introduce it in the House of Lords. I consider that we should be able to debate it here today. Surely that is the responsibility of those on both Front Benches. I am very disappointed that the Labour party has not taken the opportunity—which I believe was there—to ensure that we could debate and vote on the amendment.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Despite your valiant endeavours, Madam Speaker, the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) could not be described as "excursus interruptus". 
I want to concentrate on why our debate should not be interrupted by the guillotine. The justification for my argument comes from none other than the Secretary of State, who has attributed some importance to the Bill. It was to have been the blueprint or coping stone for the legislation of the 21st century—an injudicious claim at the best of times, which probably should not be taken seriously. 
What we have heard from the Government today is in keeping with their whole approach to this disreputable piece of legislation. The Secretary of State was in purdah for a matter of weeks before coming out with his White Paper "Choice and Diversity", for which he made such extravagant claims. When it was published on 28 July, it was subjected to the charade of consultation to which we have become accustomed under the present Government —which happened to coincide almost exactly with the period during which the whole education system was on holiday. 
Finally, as a result of that inadequate process, a Bill was presented, containing 200 pages, 252 clauses and 17 schedules. It was guillotined on Second Reading and in Committee. It is no wonder that it hit the buffers when it


reached the House of Lords, returning ultimately with 580 amendments. We should be grateful to their Lordships for slowing down a headlong, almost indecent, rush into legislation, and for reminding us of the deficiencies in the Bill. 
I mean the word "deficiencies" in two senses. First, it contains shortcomings: things have been done that ought not to have been done. Secondly. it contains omissions. The result is a labyrinthine catalogue of amendments, rivalled in recent history only by the amendments tabled to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. 
The House recently debated the estimates of the Department for Education. Much was made of the misdirection of Government investment, and the absence of the investment that was needed. The same criticisms apply to the Bill. It is not, in fact, about the choice and diversity that feature in the title of the White Paper on which it is based; it is all about enforcing one type of provision—the grant-maintained system. It might more accurately be called the Grant-Maintained Schools (By Hook or By Crook) Bill, with the emphasis on the word "crook". 
The Bill involves a scandalous rigging of the rules to take responsibility for educational provision away from local authorities, and to draw schools from them one by one, like teeth. The main instrument of the process is the manipulation of funds, reinforced in the recently published DFE estimates that we debated not long ago. Important issues of accountability for funding are embedded in many of the amendments to the Bill. 
The Bill misses the point; there is no logical connection between the administrative arrangements it sets out and the delivery of the quality that is properly referred to in its foreword. Rather than producing a Bill that is irrelevant to the educational needs of the country, it would have been better if the Government had spent money on teachers and resources for all the nation's schools. Instead, the Bill will ensure that money is spent on bribery and bureaucracy. 
Clause 1, which refers to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, has a glaring omission, because it does not refer to nursery education. With the honourable exceptions of some local education authorities—mainly Labour ones, such as my own local authority of Knowsley —our national reputation for pre-school provision should make us hang our heads in shame. Because of the guillotine, there will not be enough time for that important issue to be adequately debated. 
Important amendments have been tabled on special educational needs—a desperately important subject, given the evident inadequacies in the implementation of the Education Act 1981, which were exhaustively investigated by the Select Committee on Education. Those inadequacies have been compounded by the devil-take-thehindmost market philosophy that characterises the Bill and much of the Government's other legislation on education. The guillotine would by no means provide adequate time to do justice to such important matters. 
Other examples of missed opportunities, which are the hallmark of the Bill, will not be subject to adequate debate if the guillotine is imposed. 
The debate is important, but not in the sense intended by the Secretary of State. It is important not for its purpose of cementing in place the structure of education to take us

deep into the 21st century but in order adequately to demonstrate the dangers to which the nation's children are exposed. They are being used as guinea pigs in half-baked quack experiments in miseducation. 
For those reasons, I strongly oppose the imposition of the guillotine.

Mr. James Pawsey: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in expressing the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shortly returns to the House and once more takes his place on the Front Bench. 
The Bill has been already debated at great length. It had a two-day Second Reading debate; in Standing Committee E, it received a total of 122 hours consideration, and on Report it was considered for a further two days. It underwent a similar process in the other place: 62 hours were spent on Second Reading, with a further number of hours on Report and Third Reading. As a result, the Bill has already been debated for more than 275 hours. 
Additionally, it has been discussed in schools and homes, by parents and teachers and by governors and councillors. It has been debated for months and by thousands of people. Only the Maastricht Bill has had more time devoted to it. But this Bill is fundamentally different, in that it is worth while and of benefit to the people of the United Kingdom. 
We listened to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs.
Taylor) with some interest. She opposed the timetable motion, but I suspect that her principal reason was doctrinal: a fundamental dislike of grant-maintained status, the belief that the only good education is local authority education, and that only local education authorities can provide state education in a form suitable for the nation's children. 
I believe that the Opposition are wrong. Grant-maintained status is popular; it is popular with parents. because it gives them the type of education that they want for their children. I need hardly remind hon. Members that it is necessary for a school to ballot its parents and receive a majority in favour before it gets grant-maintained status. That is democracy in action. 
On the subject of democracy, it is worth while remembering that it was that great democrat, Michael Foot, who set the record for the number of guillotine motions, when he guillotined five separate Bills in one day, on 20 July 1976. Therefore, I believe that we should take no lessons from the Opposition when they talk about the use of the timetable motion. 
We want this measure on the statute book in time for the next school year. If the Opposition have their way, they will delay matters until it is too late. Those who believe that I exaggerate the position should remember the debates that we had in Standing Committee E. 
Time goes on and, although I should like to speak longer on this issue. I must leave time for the winding-up speeches.

Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he has mentioned—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman had already concluded.

Mrs Ann Taylor: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few comments following the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and draw his attention to a letter from Ministers that has gone out today. It says that Ministers hope that the key relevant issues will secure debate. It also says, not that they were willing to give the Opposition carte blanche to determine the timetable, but that they should discuss their proposals with us.
We have seen the Government's proposals, but do not think that there is enough time to discuss the sex education amendment, and many others. If the Government seriously consider those issues to be important, as we believe that they should, they would not table a motion that gives us only 53 seconds to debate each amendment.
The Labour party's position on the amendment that concerns the hon. Gentleman is clear. It is the only amendment on which we have tabled our own proposal, That this House doth disagree with the other place.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Did the hon. Lady, or did she not, receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) a draft guillotine motion which would have put the debate on sex education at the head of that block of time?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I did not. As far as I know, nor did anyone else on the Opposition Front Bench. There is still a possibility of reaching the debate that concerns and us, because we think that the Lords' proposals on sex education are damaging and wrong.
The block of amendments before the one that concerns us includes amendment Nos. 17 on special needs; 188 on the need for local authorities to review special needs provision; 189, which gives powers for local authorities to plan and review all special needs provision, including grant-maintained schools; 190 on the issue of access audits for access to schools for handicapped pupils; 191 on strategic planning; 192 on planning for nursery provision, especially for special needs children; 193, which concerns the need to have more attention for non-statemented special needs children; 196 on LEA services and the rights of special schools to buy them; and 199 on the relationship between grant-maintained schools and the LEA.
All those issues, which were debated at length in another place, are issues about which we feel that appropriate decisions were made. The Government intend to take the time of the House by insisting on reversing every one of those amendments.

Mr. George Walden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has ended her speech.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Once again, those of us who served on the Committee—I admit that I spent only half of that time in the Committee——

Mr. Forth: It seemed longer.

Mr. Boswell: I am conscious that my hon. Friend had to carry most of the burden of the Committee. However, most hon. Members who served on it had to endure the

Opposition complaining, whingeing, grumbling—grizzling would perhaps be an appropriate word—about the lack of time for consideration.
I know that there is always an element of ritual in guillotine debates, but it has been ritual with knobs on this afternoon. The Opposition case has no merit, and they have not advanced it with conviction. They have not carried the House with them.
The underlying problem for the Opposition is the deliberate confusion, which they have had to cover, between their synthetic indignation at the alleged curtailment—or orderly management—of debate on lines that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, are well precedented by the actions of the last Labour Government, and their inability to prioritise the subjects for the debate.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does the Minister think that people and groups such as the Cheshire dyslexia association are making synthetic arguments when they write to me expressing serious concern that issues that have come up in the Lords will not be dealt with here in proper time?

Mr. Boswell: We have provided a great deal of time for debate on the Bill. All the substantive issues have already been well rehearsed, and all the issues that have been debated this afternoon, save one, on which I shall touch —sex education—have been debated in Committee. I am satisfied that the Bill has been given full consideration.

Mr. Don Foster: How many of the amendments that we shall be debating today does the Minister believe to be important and substantive?

Mr. Boswell: That is an absurd question, which is consistent with what we have heard before. Most of the amendments are purely technical and reflect consultation.
I shall now answer the debate. We face the usual dilemma for Governments, which is played on every time by the Opposition.

Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extremely strong case for the guillotining of all Bills—a measure that has been discussed elsewhere, and with which both Labour and Conservative Members agree? What matters is what the time is used for. If the Opposition were not engaged in a Brezhnevite retreat against the whole concept of variety in our schools in the form of grant-maintained schools, we could have a wider and better debate, including a debate on sex. In the case of nursery education, I should be on the side of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The problem of time, which has led to the guillotining of the Bill, is the result of the stubborn Brezhnevite tactics of the Opposition.

Mr. Boswell: As ever, I agree with much of what my hon. Friend and neighbour has said. Let me take up his point about an early guillotine. I take issue with the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who seemed to be under the misapprehension that the Bill had been guillotined from Second Reading on. On behalf of my hon. Friends and those who served on the Committee, I can say only that many of us wished to God it had been. We went through the initial procedure and saw the long delays and waste of time.
The guts of the debate is simple. We are bent on the task of saving the Opposition from themselves. They are unable to prioritise their concerns or manage their time effectively or deploy their arguments. We must impose order on the structure of the debate. We are anxious to proceed with the debate and get on with the substantive issues——[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The behaviour of hon. Members at this point is not particularly good. It is certainly not an object lesson to any schoolchildren who may be watching.

Mr. Boswell: I hope that the House will note those strictures.
We wish to consider the issues. Only one new one—sex education—has been deployed this afternoon. The sooner that we get on the debate and stop continuing with the ritual, the better.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 222.

Division No. 338]
[4.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashby, David
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Couchman, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dicks, Terry


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Sir Richard
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Andrew
Eggar, Tim


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Cash, William
Fry, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George





Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Milligan, Stephen


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heald, Oliver
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hicks, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stephen, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thurnham, Peter






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Tredinnick, David
Whittingdale, John


Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Tim Wood.


Watts, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Austin-Walker, John
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Garrett, John


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyce, Jimmy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bradley, Keith
Godsiff, Roger


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gordon, Mildred


Burden, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hall, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Coffey, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dobson, Frank
Jowell, Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kaufman. Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S.





Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Leighton, Ron
Prescott, John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Purchase, Ken


Litherland, Robert
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Olner, William
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [15th December] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall he completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the Order [15th December]. each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, he brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE Proceedings


Lords amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 1 to 6
6.00 p.m.


Nos. 7 to 24
7.00 p.m.


Nos. 25 to 177
8.00 p.m.


Nos. 178 to 253
9.30 p.m.


Nos. 254 to 333
10.30 p.m.


Remaining amendments
midnight

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and, subject to sub-paragraph (2), shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by the Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) In the case of proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at midnight the Speaker shall, instead of putting any Question required by sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii) above, put forthwith with respect to all of the designated Amendments which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Extra time

3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting for two hours after Ten o'clock.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4.—(1) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings arc to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

GENERAL DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("his") and insert
("The Secretary of State shall exercise")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6.

Mr. Forth: In speaking to these amendments, it would help if I reminded the House briefly of the background to the clause. It seems a long time ago, but, if my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) first identified in Standing Committee the fact that the essence of the Bill, which has been before the House and another place for such a long time, was somewhat at odds with the principles and contents of the Education Act 1944. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) took up the matter and reinforced what the hon. Gentleman said. Both asked whether the Government would consider what could be done to resolve any differences or divergences that were beginning to emerge between the principles of the Bill and those of the 1944 Act.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister make it clear that I made the comments on the matter in a disapproving manner, unlike the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)?

Mr. Forth: That may be so. I cannot remember specifically the disapproval of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), but of course I accept what he says. The great service that he did to the Committee and the House—it is not overstating the case to put it that way —is that he was the first to put his finger on the difference. We came increasingly to the view that it was essential to correct and to deal with the matter. The group of amendments from another place is a direct result of that process.
In particular, there was a recognition—these are my words, and I shall no longer seek to associate the hon. Gentleman with my remarks—that education is no longer primarily the monopoly of the local education authority. Conservative Members are convinced that the best way to secure improved standards in education is to give individual institutions responsibility for deciding how best they can meet the needs of the people they serve—we have already made considerable progress on that. Those institutions are covered by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, in which we were happy to give the former polytechnics, now universities, their independence.

They have responded to that in full measure and with vigour, and have used that independence in the most positive way.
The Act also took further education sixth form colleges out of local education authority control. Those institutions are using their independence to benefit the students whom they serve. The local and business communities also benefit from the work of those institutions and from the improved attainment levels of their students. The same process is taking place in our school system. We and, most importantly, parents and pupils are experiencing an increase in the benefits that that process brings.
The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced local management of schools into the maintained school sector. Its introduction was much maligned by backward-looking Members, mainly Opposition Members. The policy of local management of schools has been grasped with enthusiasm by schools up and down the country. They have relished the opportunity that it has given them to take greater responsibility for managing their affairs in the interests of pupils.
More importantly, the Education Reform Act also gave schools the opportunity to opt out completely of local education authority control. It should be no surprise that Opposition Members also opposed that measure, but we now have a flourishing grant-maintained, self-governing school sector, which will continue to grow in response to parental demand. Nearly 500 self-governing schools are already operating and another 140 or so have received approval from the Department of Education and the Secretary of State. In a further 260, parents have voted to approve applications or proposals for grant-maintained status. More than one in five secondary schools has now balloted on grant-maintained status. Those figures clearly demonstrate the continuing popularity of the reform.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has made the important point that most of the great educational advances, which have been widely welcomed by teachers, parents, governors and pupils, have been opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. Those initiatives include the technical and vocational education initiative and the local management of schools policy that my hon. Friend mentioned. Does he agree that the Opposition will oppose the current legislation tooth and nail in the House today, but, in a few years' time, their policy will be stood on its head and they will support the Bill?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is a problem for Opposition Members. They have to decide how long they can hold out against the tide of parental opinion and the strongly expressed views of parents. If Opposition Members persist in seeking to deny parents the freedoms that we provide—the elements of choice, the ability to ballot on grant-maintained status and the like —the Opposition will be the losers and we will be the beneficiaries.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: What does the Minister have to say to the ex-mayor of Calderdale, Tory Councillor Carpenter, who recently said that the education department in Calderdale had been placed in a financially perilous position by the opt-out? Councillor Carpenter warns that it will he the end of the local


education authority, if not the local authority, because of the double funding and the way in which finances are skewed towards the opted-out sector.

Mr. Forth: In the friendliest possible way, I would tell that councillor to look closely at the way in which his local authority operates and uses its funds. He should seek the advice of some of his colleagues throughout local education authorities, many of whom have responded imaginatively and positively to the challenge of grant-maintained status. Some of them have encouraged schools to become grant-maintained, others have welcomed the competition and others have sought, hopelessly, to resist the trend. It would help him if he discussed the matter with his colleagues in other authorities and found out the secret to responding successfully and positively to the challenge. I am disappointed by his negative attitude, but he will be able to find succour and advice from many who have found the secret which has eluded him until now. 
In the grant-maintained schools, self-governing status has helped to release enormous, previously untapped potential. The parents, who have chosen and balloted for the freedom of grant-maintained status because they want the best for their children, recognise that. The Bill maintains the momentum. In particular, it establishes a coherent and stable framework which will allow self-governing schools, and prospective self-governing schools, to plan confidently for the future. While guaranteeing that the route to self-governing status will remain, via the parental ballot, the Bill rightly makes the transition simpler. 
Education law needs to be brought up to date to reflect the fundamental changes that have already taken place. Like the 1944 Act, it needs to be able to accommodate the changes still to come. That is precisely what clause 1 achieves. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the education of people in England and Wales. It encompasses all the key organisations which have, and will continue to have, important roles to play in the delivery of the highest-quality education—local education authorities, the Funding Agency for Schools, the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils and, most importantly, the individual schools, colleges and universities—without cluttering the clause with a long, unwieldy list. 
The clause establishes the key objectives of the Government: to improve standards, to increase opportunities for choice and to encourage diversity. The Bill will take us well into the next century. I have no doubt that, in the years to come, its praises will be sung throughout the House. Even Opposition Members may, on reflection, recognise the Bill's aims. 
I will now turn to the amendments brought from another place. A number of peers were concerned that the clause in some way extended the power of the Secretary of State over institutions in the higher education sector beyond those powers already given to him in existing statute. That was never the intention behind the clause—the genesis of which I have described. We did not believe that that was the effect of the clause. However, we recognised the force of the concerns expressed and were happy to table amendments which sought to allay those concerns. 
The amendments brought from another place make it clear that the Secretary of State should have a general duty to promote the education of people in England and Wales, regardless of whether that education is provided in schools, colleges or universities. That aim is set out in new clause 1 which is entirely free standing. In turn, new clause 2, which is concerned with the use of the Secretary of State's powers, clearly applies only to schools and further education institutions and to primary, secondary and further education. 
I have set out the intentions of clause 1, which is important, but it goes no further than I have described. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I wish to take up some of the issues raised by the Minister. In the last 30 seconds of his speech—which was obviously truncated by the guillotine motion—the Minister referred to amendments Nos. 1 to 6. He did not refer to them in the rest of his speech, but I shall concentrate on the amendments, as I wish to probe the Government's intentions when the clause was brought before the House and when it came before the other place. We have never had a satisfactory explanation about that. 
Just to ensure that the idea does not enter folklore, we must continually remind the Government that the Opposition do not oppose local management of schools and did not oppose it when it was introduced, but we rightly objected to the formula on which it was originally based. It is common ground between us that subsidiarity should apply and that decisions should be taken down to the level at which they can best be made. It is, however, a myth to claim that the Opposition opposed the principle. We merely opposed the formula and we were entitled to—we do not have to accept everything rammed down our throats by the Government. 
I remind the House that the 1944 Act was our Act. The Conservative party has no proprietorial rights over it. So let us all use language that we can understand and not perpetrate central office mythology. 
On report, on 2 March at column 161, the Secretary of State made it abundantly clear that this part of the Bill was intended to apply to the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities. Indeed, he went out of his way to specify that it was intended to cover higher education. That intention clearly showed through the drafting of both the clause and the right hon. Gentleman's speech. 
It was not until the Bill left this House and went to another place that the issue was debated in detail. There was hardly any debate here, because the 6 pm guillotine fell during the second sentence spoken by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), as I know from having read the debate. There was no debate here about the effects on higher education and the Secretary of State's intention that universities be covered. 
Following the debates in the House of Lords and today's remarks by the Minister, we have still had no explanation of why Ministers intended to extend these powers into higher education. It would help us to guard against such moves in the future and be able to bring the Government to account if we were given an explanatory statement. Although the Government have backtracked in the meantime, it would still he useful to know their thinking on the matter. 
This is our first opportunity to discuss the issue. Although we agree with the Lords amendments, we make it crystal clear that the Opposition do not see threats to university autonomy or academic freedom in the promotion of policies in respect of quality education, wider access to higher education and equity of treatment as between full or part-time students in further or higher education. We will not be dictated to; nor will we accept criticism from the university sector simply because we want to raise these issues, as they were raised in the Lords. They can be properly debated in a mature fashion, surely, without such accusations being tossed around the Chamber. 
For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that it is quite legitimate to raise these issues in debates, here and in another place. No one is levelling charges at anyone about a diminution of academic freedom or autonomy. Higher education itself is about inquiry and change, phenomena which can be uncomfortable bedfellows for those in politics and higher education. 
We do not yet have the benefit of seeing a consolidated clause, although I have one with me drawn up by the Library. Nevertheless, the Lords amendments construct a composite clause. I have already declared an interest—not pecuniary—as a serving member of an FE college corporation, a post in which I served for 20 years before coming to the House. Neither I nor my hon. Friends know of any FE corporation that wants to return to the status quo ante—that is not in dispute. I have seen at first hand the changes that have occurred and the problems both before and after incorporation. It has not all been plain sailing. 
The borders between these sectors of education are becoming ever more blurred, the more so since further education is still included in the clause. We know that the Higher Education Funding Council for England directly funds no fewer than 77 FE colleges higher education courses. Given that the HE arrangements in further education colleges are either franchise-based or based on 3 plus 1 or 2 plus 2 degrees, we want to know how the Secretary of State will exercise his power in the FE sector without impinging on the commitments given in another place to the effect that he will not do so in the higher education sector. Almost a quarter of FE colleges use this arrangement—higher education takes place, in fact, in far more than 77 of them, although only 77 are directly funded for it. As some of these colleges work in partnership with the universities, we need to know the Secretary of State's intentions. 
5.15 pm
As the summer will show, cuts in university places will become apparent when the brown envelopes do not drop through doors, but that is to be compensated for in part by the proposed expansion—of 25 per cent. over the next three years—in the number of further education places. Some of that number will clearly be in higher education—so much has emerged from the colleges and from ministerial statements. The clause will thus have an effect on the HE sector. 
I appreciate that the university lobby and its representatives in the House of Lords did not discuss this aspect. I was in the other place, in the Gallery, on 20 April, watching the kebabing of Baroness Blatch as she proposed the original clause. The vice-chancellors and their representatives rightly concentrated on their own

institutions, because there had been no consultation or debate in this place, nor had there been any warning that the Government intended, as it appeared, to take further powers over the higher education sector. 
I have been to the other place only a few times and I found it illuminating to see the House of Lords chock-a-block, with every speaker from every quarter attacking the Government. Even after the Minister had given way to their demands, they carried on for another hour pressing their case. Anyone waiting to speak on any other aspect of the Bill would have found himself trampled at the end of that debate, because so many people were leaving. 
I do not want to fall foul of anyone in the higher education sector, but I suggest that the next batch of working peers should be drawn exclusively from the further education sector, the better to represent its views—especially in view of the blurring of the two sectors. It would be useful to have more practitioners, heads of departments and principals from FE, and more heads of nursery schools, in the second Chamber, while it remains in its present form. 
That makes the debates more rounded, and it would allow those of us who tend to concentrate on higher education to understand that the lower tiers of education provide the seedcorn. It is wrong to compartmentalise each sector of education. I make this point for all party leaders as they draw up their lists of working peerages. Our higher education sector deserves a statement in greater detail than the Minister has been able to give so far about why they were included in the original clause. 
In principle we do not disagree with the new wider powers, but on behalf of those who will be on the receiving end of them we are entitled to ask how the Minister will exercise them. Will representatives of parents, teachers, students and pupils be consulted before these wide general powers are exercised? In the spirit in which the Government should conduct education policy, they should be prepared to say that there will be meaningful consultation because sometimes consultation is merely symbolic. More thought by the Government before presenting the new clause would have been helpful for all concerned. 
We do not oppose the amendments. We would have raised the same issues if we had had the opportunity when the Bill was going through this place. However, we did not have the opportunity to do that because the Government were not willing to allow time to debate the Bill in the detail that it deserves.

Mr. James Pawsey: One of the Bill's principal objects is to make it easier for schools to apply for grant-maintained status. That was said in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South Mr. O'Hara). I welcome grant-maintained status, although the hon. Gentleman did not. Opposition Members have made no secret of their hostility to grant-maintained status. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is in her customary place on the Opposition Front Bench, has said that, if Labour ever wins a general election, it will abolish grant-maintained status and put schools hack under local education authorities. 
Parental opinion expressed through a free and secret ballot apparently means nothing to the hon. Member for Dewsbury. It is odd that she is so far out of step with her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands,


East (Mr. Smith) and with her hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who are steadily moving away from the old clause 4 mentality that only state ownership and the LEA are right. The hon. Lady is in something of a time warp. Most believe that she will have to change her mind on this issue in precisely the way that she changed it on the sale of council houses. 
Does the hon. Member for Dewsbury seriously tell the House and the nation that, at a time when hundreds of schools have become grant-maintained and hundreds of thousands of the nation's children are being educated in them, she will abolish their status and return them to the control of local education authorities? Does she think that parents will stand for that? Does not she understand the magnitude of the upheaval and the damage that the change will do to innumerable children in the state sector? The hon. Lady is unwise, and it may be significant that already there are rumours that some of her hon. Friends think that she is wrong and will seek to change her mind before it becomes set in its customary concrete.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Who?

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Who?" It is up to him to take soundings in his party. If he does not know who they are, it is not for me to tell him

Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, as he usually does. When my party forms the Government in three years' time, it will return opted-out schools to the state sector.

Mr. Pawsey: I wonder whether the House noted the silence with which the hon. Gentleman's intervention was received by his hon. Friends. Does he realise how isolated he is becoming in his party?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Pawsey: Now they are queuing up

Mr. Enright: We are getting close to the end of the hon. Gentleman's second speech and I have not yet heard one iota about his philosophy on education or anything about his aims or dreams or what he intends to do and what education is about. All that he can do is grub in the dirt.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the debates in Standing Committee E. If he can remember that far back, he will recall that I spelled out in substantial detail my philosophy on education. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to take up more time by repeating purely for the hon. Gentleman's benefit what I said at length some time ago. 
Grant-maintained schools are successful because they are popular with parents and more parents want them; their wishes are expressed through a free and secret ballot. For such schools to be sacrificed to a political vision that is becoming increasingly abandoned by the more progressive thinkers in the Labour party would be a mistake on a par with Labour's expectations during the last general election.

Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I should like to make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is obviously wound up on this issue. Will he give a commitment that the promises given to parents during the ballots on grant-maintained schools will be kept and that the funding of future grant-maintained schools will be on the same basis as the funding of those schools to which that status has already been granted?

Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge that funding will become increasingly tight. Conservative Members certainly accept that, because we understand the substantial deficit between Government revenue and expenditure. We appreciate what has to be done to rectify that deficit, but that does not damage the fundamental principle of grant-maintained schools. People vote for those schools, and they come into existence not because of the extra funding that they receive but because parents believe in them and appreciate the greater freedom and the greater choice that go with them. The hon. Gentleman should understand that. 
When the hon. Member for Dewsbury was shadow spokesman on the environment, she took a long time to accept the sale of council houses and accepted it only after several thousand had been sold. Given time and several thousand grant-maintained schools, I am certain that she will again see the light—perhaps not in a brilliant flash as on the road to Dewsbury, but rather sullenly and reluctantly—and she will be motivated by the knowledge that the abolition of grant-maintained status would be unpopular and a real vote loser. 
There is nothing like four lost general elections to concentrate even the most recalcitrant mind. Parents want grant-maintained schools and they will get them, but only from a Conservative Government. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends listen only to the trade unions and to the views and needs of their friends and comrades in local authorities. They must understand that grant-maintained schools offer genuine choice and genuine diversity to the nation's parents. 
One of our more interesting debates took place on 21 January; it was on specialisation. I make no secret of the fact that I support specialisation and believe that where governing bodies, parents and teachers want to specialise in technology, science or music, they should be allowed to do so. Specialisation adds additional choice, concentrates resources and challenges pupils, and it should be welcomed. 
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, about 640 schools have been approved for grant-maintained status, and a further 260 applications are in the pipeline. The vast majority of those are secondary schools. Currently, about 20 per cent. of secondary schools have applied for grant-maintained status and more than 350,000 of the nation's children are now taught in grant-maintained schools. That is a clear sign of the magnitude of the revolution taking place. For the first time in almost 100 years, the apron strings that secured schools to LEAs are being cut. 
I have long held the view that those who believe that the only acceptable form of state education is local authority education are mistaken. There is a place for the local education authority, but it is unwise to assume that only one form of education is right. It is also unwise to accept that all the nation's children should be educated in a single type of school, run by a single form of authority.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's assent. 
No one person and no single system has a monopoly on virtue. The old monolithic structure of the LEAs, which has survived for the best part of 100 years, is now under challenge—and rightly so. Parents are becoming more knowledgeable as a result of the Government's reforms and they are becoming more interested in their children's education. They have the right to exercise their opinions and their choice. We have made it possible for the educational establishment to be challenged and most parents are taking advantage of that. 
The Bill makes it easier for primary schools to emerge through the introduction of clustering. That will be of particular benefit to schools in rural areas. The concept of clustering will also assist denominational schools—for example, a Catholic secondary school will be able to apply for grant-maintained status with its feeder primary schools. 
I think it appropriate to quote from a letter that I received from the Catholic Education Service, dated 22 January. In that letter, the deputy director told me:
In Sheffield, where I learn this morning that three of our primary schools are about to embark upon the GM route, there is no doubt that the authority has consistently sold Catholic schools short when comparisons are made with the LEA funding with county schools of similar size. I am told that examples of the same can also be found in Derbyshire. Similar observation has been made in Staffordshire and Liverpool and, I regret, could be demonstrated elsewhere. Such disparities in provision, long suspected, became apparent with delegated budget provision.
I am not especially surprised that some LEAs have consistently sold Catholic schools short. That may or may not have been deliberate policy, but, whatever the reason, it will be put right when such schools receive grant-maintained status. They will then receive their fair share of resources, with greater freedom added for good measure.

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time.

Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has spoken for a second time. Could he explain why the Archbishop's spokesman, Bishop David Konstant, is opposed to grant-maintained schools and advises Catholic schools not to go down that route? For the hon. Gentleman's information, I have taught in Catholic schools under both Conservative and Labour authorities, both of which have always given excellent back-up to Catholic schools. I pay tribute to them for that.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he did not challenge the extracts that I quoted from the letter from the Catholic Education Service; clearly, he rightly accepts them as correct. On the question of Bishop Konstant, it may be that his opinion has more to do with his political beliefs than with anything else. I merely put that point to the hon. Gentleman for good measure. I certainly hope that more Catholic schools take the plunge and are reborn or rebaptised as grant-maintained schools. 
Throughout the passage of the Bill, Labour Members have ridiculed grant-maintained status and have tried to reduce the significance of the numbers. I ask them again today, as I asked them in Committee: if grant-maintained status is as unsuccessful as they claim, why do they make such a fuss about it? The fact is that grant-maintained status is a substantial benefit. 
I want to discuss my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's admirable initiative in tackling failing schools. Education associations will take over where LEAs leave off. It is not always easy for an LEA to get to grips with a failing inner-city school, where the headmaster may be old or tired or nearing retirement. My right hon. Friend's solution will be of substantial benefit, so I hope that the amendment will receive the support of Labour Members. 
Education associations will be a longstop, rarely called into existence and then only when an LEA has failed, despite being given the appropriate time and opportunity to take remedial action. Membership of the education associations will be small and committed, and I believe that their attitude will be positive and substantial. They will be of great importance to a considerable number of children who otherwise might be let down by a particular school. 
The Bill continues the thrust of the Government's reforms. It picks up where the Education Reform Act 1988 left off. It builds on the independent schools inspectorate, and it confirms the national curriculum and testing. The aim of the Government's reforms is ambitious: it is no less than a genuine attempt to improve the quality and standard of state education where the majority of the nation's children are educated. I believe that to be a truly laudable objective.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke about the damage that the plans and policies of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) might do to children. If only he would, to use his own words, take soundings throughout the country, he would find that many people, including governors, parents and teachers, would tell him that the Government's current policies are already causing a great deal of damage to the education service. 
The hon. Gentleman spoke about sacrificing the education service for political ideology. The ideology that he and his party support has already led to strife rather than consensus in the education service. The ideology that the hon. Gentleman, his party and his Government support has led to competition throughout the service, rather than the partnership that was such an important element of the 1944 Education Act, about which Conservative Members boasted so proudly only a few moments ago. They have had 14 years in office and have brought in 17 major education Bills, yet they still fail to get it right. 
I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he truly believes that, if all schools opted out, 23,000 quasi-independent schools would add up to what he and I both understand to be an education service.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. The difference between us is not that I would drive 23,000 schools into one form of education or another—very simply, I want to give them the choice. Freedom to choose is what it is all about. It is what parents want and it is what they will get from the


Government. It would be helpful to know what the hon. Gentleman's party would do with grant-maintained schools. Are you going to go down the same route—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the rule that all remarks must be addressed to the Chair. I do not think that he intended to put that question to me.

Mr. Pawsey: Certainly not. I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I intended to direct my remarks entirely to the hon. Gentleman who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Incidentally, it is significant that he is alone, enjoying no support from other members of his party. Perhaps that is a clue to what they think about their party's policies. Nevertheless, let me hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about grant-maintained schools and whether his party would keep them or abolish them.

Mr. Foster: My Liberal Democrat colleagues have full confidence in all the remarks that I am likely to make. Hon. Members will, of course, note that there is a greater proportion of Liberal Democrats present than of Conservatives. 
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not answer the question. Will 23,000 quasi-independent schools provide an adequate education service? The crucial issue is surely whether we believe that schools can take all the decisions affecting the education service or whether some issues should be decided by a body at a higher level than individual schools. The Liberal Democrats believe that we should continue to move towards giving more power and autonomy to individual schools but that schools should still be contained within a local and democratically accountable strategic planning framework. The proposals by the hon. Gentleman and his party would lose that framework to the detriment of education as a whole. 
I do not dissent from the amendments, but it is nevertheless important to reflect on the fact that the Under-Secretary of State said that it was the hon. Member for Hemsworth Mr. Enright) who had put his finger on a particular problem which it was "essential to correct". The Government's failure to recognise the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman shows all too clearly the haste with which the legislation was cobbled together. The need for amendment after amendment to be tabled in the House and in another place shows that the Government have introduced legislation that has not been thought through properly. 
It is important to remember how many amendments the Government have had to table. From the figures that I have been given, I understand that the Government had to table 278 amendments in Committee, 78 on Report, a further 258 in another place, 296 on Report in another place and a further 71 on Third Reading in another place. Today, the Government have tabled still more amendments. That works out at an average of three amendments per clause on a Bill that is already one of the longest ever to come before the House. It is clearly proof of the incompetence with which the legislation was put together. 
On our debate on the timetable motion, we heard about not only the incompetence with which the Bill was put

together but the incompetent way in which it has proceeded through both Houses. It is therefore no wonder that a report in The Guardian last week stated:
What is—or certainly should be—quite indisputable is that the process which has carried this bill thus far has been a disgrace to Parliament.
I entirely concur with that sentiment. 
The clause and the amendments draw the attention of the House to the Secretary of State's increasing powers. Many members of the Opposition parties are extemely worried about those powers. The Secretary of State received 500 additional powers under the Education Reform Act 1988. The Secretary of State now has powers to open and close schools; powers over what should be taught in those schools and over the information that should be published about them; powers in respect of their funding and admission arrangements; and, indeed, powers over whether specialisation—often a euphemism for selection—can be introduced into those schools. 
Those powers are greater than those given to a comparable Minister in any other European country and mean that the Secretary of State for Education has more powers than any Minister with the exception of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State's powers are being used to diminish the co-operation and partnership between local education authorities, governors, individual schools and teachers, which were developed as part of the Education Act 1944. The Secretary of State's increasing powers prove that the Government care more for their dogma than for the well-being of children. 
5.45 pm
The amendments draw to our attention the way in which education is increasingly being run by quangos. Recent figures have revealed that about one fifth of all public expenditure is now controlled by quangos. In recent years, the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council have been created, and the Bill will create new funding authorities for grant-maintained schools. It must be a matter of great concern to many hon. Members that the quangos have as members people who are not democratically elected but appointed by the Secretary of State. They can hold meetings in private at which they can take decisions for which there is no democratic accountability. More important, the quangos have no base in the local communities. The clause and the amendments signal the break-up of the co-operation and partnership created under the 1944 Act. 
The Under-Secretary said that he believed that many of us would come to welcome the Bill in retrospect. I must tell him that he is sadly mistaken, because, as I have said many times—this will cause a look of great pain to appear on the Under-Secretary's face—I truly believe that the Bill will bring chaos and division to our education service. I knew that he was wondering when that phrase would occur. Equally important, the Bill fails to deal with many of the important issues facing our education service, not least the underfunding of our schools and the crucial need to increase the availability of nursery education. 
The Bill, as reflected in the increased powers given to the Secretary of State, not only will be a short-term disappointment to us all but will certainly be a long-term disaster for the education service. H. G. Wells said:
Human activity becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe".


But, if the Bill is passed, education and catastrophe will be running neck and neck.

Mr. George Walden: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to the extension of the Government's powers. That extension is undeniable, but it has become necessary because the co-operation and partnership of which he spoke so warmly sadly turned out to be a co-operation for mediocrity and a partnership in low expectations. That was the record of education during all the decades when the localities were in charge and when the centre—Governments of both parties—had very few powers. I believe that it has therefore become a regrettable necessity for the Government to take greater powers. That is obviously reflected—

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden: No. I may give way later, but we are approaching the time limit on this debate. 
Clause 1 refers to the Secretary of State exercising his powers
with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.
In the short time left to me, I want to address my remarks specifically to the problem of girls and women in education and how clause 1 affects them. 
I happen to be a feminist—of the most high-minded sort. One of the things that has seriously disturbed me in this country, in contrast to the achievements of other countries, is the appalling under-achievement and under-expectation of girls and women at every level of the education system. That is why I share the view of Opposition Members, and of some Conservative Members, that nursery education, which does not feature in the Bill and which is not mentioned specifically in clause 1, is a primary necessity, not just because of its general and social advantages, but specifically to make an early start to improve the expectations of girls from the age of two and a half upwards. I have seen that happen in other countries, most notably in France in the maternelles, which a daughter of mine attended. 
From the age of two and half, girls are treated intellectually—if one can use such a big word—and practically on the same level as boys. We all know that old-fashioned traditionalist practices pertain when girls are left in the home. In those early years, perhaps less is required of a little girl who is sent away with her dolls and such like and perhaps more is required of a boy. Removing a girl from that kind of background, particularly in traditionalist British society, is a positive good, quite apart from the other general arguments for nursery education. That is the first stage where we go wrong in this country and where girls begin to lose. 
I am in favour of the provisions for grant-maintained schools because they will enhance quality and expectations for all, and particularly for girls. Those who de facto have been in control of our education system for decades—not the Government, but the education establishment and local authorities—have failed to raise expectations for all and specifically for girls.

Dr. Robert Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he acknowledge that the majority of chief education officers in this country are men? In so far as the Bill promotes GM schools, those schools will be controlled by parents and governors. Many

parents and governors will be women. Indeed, at least half the parents will be women. Therefore, women will be able to take an active role in promoting the cause of education and equality for women in schools.

Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend has made a good point, which supports the flow of my argument and which is yet another reason for being in favour of such schools. 
The national curriculum will help because girls, who traditionally tended to drop science or mathematics and were not encouraged to develop their talents in that area, will no longer he able to drop those subjects. I believe that we will gain benefits economically and as a society from that. 
However, if, despite our efforts, the intrinsic drive towards mediocrity which is so culturally deep seated in the education establishment of this country persists, we will have a system in which schools will fail girls relatively. That failure will continue. Indeed, I believe that we are seeing that already in higher education. 
With regard to higher education, there is still a huge disproportion in the number of girls studying what are broadly categorised as arts subjects—or "soft" subjects as they are sometimes called—as opposed to the harder subjects like physics. If the education system does not succeed in increasing diversity, to which clause 1 refers, particularly for women, an horrific prospect will loom before us. 
In respect of the historically vast and sudden expansion of higher education and the enormous and overdue expansion of the proportion of women in higher education—I believe that women now comprise about 50 per cent. of those in higher education—there is a general danger of standards being lowered if schools do not prepare pupils to maintain those standards. We run the risk of producing from our higher education establishments an enormous number of women graduates who will have been sold a pup. 
The standards required in those establishments, particularly in the arts subjects, are falling. Indeed, the slippage can already be noted with regard to A-levels. Some English papers are very slipshod. One can get by with just a few 20th-century authors and possibly one Shakespeare work. One need know nothing more about the history of English literature.

Mr. Enright: Where is the evidence for that?

Mr. Walden: In such circumstances, women will be very bitter, because they will emerge from higher education with a rather mediocre degree—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has made a most pathetic and unthinking intervention which, in a way, I rather expected from him. He said that what I am saying is sexist. What I am saying is pro-feminist. I am glad to see Members on the Opposition Front Bench nodding.

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden: No. I will not give way until I have finished. 
I do not want to see the women of this country sold a pup in terms of higher education. I want them to have the highest possible standards and the highest possible expectations based on what is expected in schools so that they do not go through higher education, posssibly from a poor background and possibly the first generation in the family to do that, emerge with a crummy degree and end


up behind a typewriter or word processor. That would be a bitter disappointment for them and an extremely expensive way of producing people to work on word processors. 
Right from the word go, from the age of two and a half, we must change the culture of expectations, and of girls in particular, so that we do not sell them a pup progressively through the education system to the higher levels.

Mr. Forth: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to this brief debate as quickly as I can. I am tempted to take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) although perhaps I will have a word with him afterwards. 
With regard to the key point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), it was never the Government's or the Secretary of State's intention to take the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) somehow to extend the Secretary of State's powers in some mystical way over higher education. Like the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I well recall the strength and violence of the debate in another place on this issue where those most directly concerned with higher education took the opportunity to re-emphasise their independence. 
I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will accept that, while clause 1 states, as it should, the general responsibility on the Secretary of State for Education to promote education in its widest sense, clause 2 makes it explicit that that general responsibility will be expressed in the use of the powers of the Secretary of State solely in schools and in further education. That was our response to the concerns that were expressed in another place, in an effort to make that distinction as clear as possible. 
The hon. Member for Perry Barr made a good point about how the distinction would be carried through on the ground to the higher and further education sectors. The further and higher education funding councils are developing an understanding of the different roles of their sectors. They are beginning to identify, in that overlapping partnership, ways in which different institutions can make their best contribution. The developing role of the Secretary of State, which is outlined in clause 2, will sit well with that, led and guided by the role of the funding councils in order to make sure that we make the best possible use of that partnership which hon. Members welcome in the developing role of further education, working ever more closely with higher education. 
Clauses 1 and 2 are not threatening; they are a positive development. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend for the role that he played in this—

It being Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos 2 to 6 agreed to.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the issue

of sub judice. It arises from current litigation in the High Court this morning—the Queen v. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte the right hon. Lord Rees-Mogg. One is concerned with the view that the Government are taking of the issue of sub judice. It is reported that a Government spokesman has said:
The Government did not oppose the application. We will of course oppose the substance. Now that leave has been granted, the matter is sub judice.
If that view were to prevail, and were it to be interpreted in the broad sense, it could inhibit the whole discussion in this honourable House on a matter of great public controversy. If it were a narrow interpretation of the minutiae of the litigation, our concern would be less. But if any litigant can go along to the High Court and seek for judicial review, which of course is a comparatively recent innovation, on a matter which is a current major political controversy, it would mean that this High Court of Parliament would be muzzled. 
Therefore, I ask that the Government immediately, in the person of the Attorney-General, clarify the matter and say whether it is the correct view that the Government regard the matter as sub judice. 
The whole House will be interested, whatever view is taken by No. 10 Downing street and its spokesmen of sub judice, to know what view would be taken by the Chair on the general position which might inhibit the whole discussion on Thursday and indeed possibly—I hope not—call it in question?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The House will be aware that the House has its own clear rules on the question of matters sub judice. This matter must be considered by Madam Speaker. It is not for me to prejudge the issue. I will of course ensure, if she does not know already, that Madam Speaker is made aware of this exchange. I do not think that the matter can be taken further at this moment.

Mr. Morris: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not my intention, I can assure you, to continue with the matter at this very moment. It has only recently been brought to our attention, and I am grateful for the indication that you have given. But two matters arise. I would hope to clear the air, lest some unfortunate and wrong conception be given to the world at large that a view is given in the course of the evening before we adjourn tonight. The Government should seek an opportunity to make a statement. I hope that Madam Speaker will also clarify what the Chair's view would be in the somewhat strange, novel and uncharted ground tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that the Treasury Front Bench will have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words. No doubt Madam Speaker will shortly be aware of them, too. I cannot take the matter further now. I am also very conscious that we are working to a guillotine and that other important business is before us.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to take a further point of order on this matter.

Mr. Marlow: It is a different point or order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is different.

Mr. Marlow: It is a different point of order. Briefly, we are scheduled to have a debate on Thursday. That debate arises from clause 7 of what will be an Act of Parliament only if it receives Royal Assent. At the moment, that Bill is subject to legal doubts. Is it proper for a Bill which is subject to legal doubts to be put before Her Majesty for Royal Assent?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me in the Chair at this moment. We must now consider the next group of amendments.

Clause 2

FUNDING AGENCY FOR SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("() persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors")

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments: Nos. 8 to 10, 23 and 175. 
No. 177, Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu. 
No. 180 and Government amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d). 
No. 181 and Government motion to disagree. 
Nos. 397 to 399, No. 401 and No. 403.

Mr. Forth: This group of amendments concerns the funding authorities; many of them are either technical or deal with minor omissions and tidying up. The main issues covered by the amendments are membership of the funding authorities and a new function for the Funding Agency for Schools in respect of 'value of money'. 
Let me deal first with the amendments on membership. In response to concerns expressed in the other place by representatives of the voluntary sector, the Secretary of State will now be under a duty to consult both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church before making any appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools. In reality, those organisations will be the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service. In addition, the Secretary of State will be required to consider the desirability of appointing as a member of the funding agency for schools an individual representative of the voluntary sector. 
By virtue of amendment No. 8, the Secretary of State will have to consider the desirability of appointing as a member of both the FAS and the Schools Funding Council for Wales an individual with experience in providing for pupils with special educational needs. 
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has tabled two amendments which would tie the LEAs into the Funding Agency for Schools. I hope and expect—I have said this many times in Committee and in the House—that the FAS and LEAs will work together in close co-operation, but it would not be appropriate to place a requirement on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State should consult representatives of local education authorities before

making appointments to the FAS. That agency has a role in relation to grant-maintained schools, not to LEA-maintained schools.
I refer now to amendment No. 177, which I cannot commend to the House. Of course the Government are wholly committed to ensuring that public funds are used with economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the growing grant-maintained sector. My noble Friend agreed in the other place that there should be a clear requirement on the face of the legislation for value-for-money studies to that end, but right hon. and hon. Members will realise that there are technicalities which need to be got right, which include safeguarding the valued independence of the National Audit Office.
The fundamental problem with amendment No. 177, although I support its thrust, is that it places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations which could be regarded as biting on the independent role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know that that would be of concern not only to hon. Members in general but to the Public Accounts Committee in particular.
To rectify that defect, the Government propose a new clause in lieu of Lords amendment No. 177 in part 1, as set out on the Paper. That would place an explicit duty on the funding authorities to ensure value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools. That duty is already implicit in the monitoring roles proposed for the FAS and its Welsh counterpart, but the amendment will place beyond all possible doubt both the duty on the funding authorities and the importance that the Government place on accountability and the proper stewardship of taxpayers' money. The amendment would not trespass on the responsibilities and independence of the National Audit Office, whose recent report on financial controls in the grant-maintained sector I am sure hon. Members will have read with interest, as I did.
Indeed, the NAO's responsibilities and independence of action in this matter are properly enshrined in Lords amendment No. 180, which I fully support. That places on the face of the legislation the Comptroller and Auditor General's right of access to the accounts of each and every grant-maintained school. That right is presently secured only through secondary legislation. The amendment also provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to this House each Session on whether he has carried out any value-for-money studies of GM schools, and if so, what are their results. In determining the programme of studies of the National Audit Office, he will also be required to take account of any relevant report published by the Audit Commission.
That provision will have a dual effect. It will ensure that there is no unnecessary double banking. However, if the findings of the Audit Commission indicate that further investigations are warranted, the Comptroller and Auditor General may build on what has already been made public. I am sure that the increase in transparency—through the annual reports to Parliament and the encouragement for more professional scrutiny in a co-ordinated way—will be welcomed by hon. Members.
Amendment No. 181 and the Government's amendment to amendment No. 180 are technical ones relating to definitions. Parliamentary counsel has advised that the approach in amendment No. 180 is preferable. Amendments (b), (c) and (d) to amendment No. 180 would


require grant-maintained schools to send their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General and for him to make them available for public inspection.
I want to make two comments on that. First, the amendments are defective, unless the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) intended to place on schools the onerous burden of sending to the Comptroller and Auditor General not simply the audited accounts but all the supporting documentation of financial transactions during the year. Secondly, the amendments are unnecessary, because grant-maintained schools are already required to make their audited accounts available for inspection by any member of the public.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We are discussing a wide group of amendments, but that is part of the difficulty with the time constraint under which we are operating this evening. The amendments to which the Minister referred initially—those relating to membership of the funding agency—are generally welcomed, not least because we made suggestions along similar lines in Committee and, indeed, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
In Committee, the Minister told us that it would be inappropriate to prescribe who should be on the funding agency and it should not be a "ragbag of individual interests". I am glad that he has changed his approach and is willing to accept that there should be some guidance with regard to the membership of the Committee.
The Minister did not mention the amendment dealing with section 11 funding and the distribution of section 11 funds through the funding agency. I wish that he had said something about section 11 funding because many of us are waiting for Ministers to recognise the problems that the cuts in section 11 money are causing schools at present. The fact that the Government have reneged on their initial deal on section 11 funding is causing great and real hardship. I wish that we had more time to explore that fully and that the Minister had spoken about that aspect as well.
The amendments that I want to concentrate on are those that the Minister dealt with at the end of his contribution—amendment No. 177 and the Government's amendments to the Lords suggestions. Clearly, there is a need for greater accountability for grant-maintained schools. After all, we are talking about public money. The recent debate, abeit a brief one, on the Select Committee report on education expenditure threw up many interesting items. One of the most significant items was the extent of double funding of grant-maintained schools and, indeed, the bias with regard to capital for grant-maintained schools.
6.15 pm
It is clear that GM schools had an unfair share of the cake in the past. The fact that there has been insufficient scrutiny of the distribution of funds is a cause for great concern and alarm. I remind the Minister that more than half the present 492 GM schools are double-funded with regard to their annual maintenance grant. Many of them gain considerable amounts of money at the expense of local education authority schools in that area—the budgets of local education authority schools are robbed to give grant-maintained schools extra provision.
It is a fact that the first schools to seek grant-maintained status got a higher degree of double funding and that advantage may be drying up. When the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) talked about funds for GM schools, he said that funding would become increasingly tight. That is the case. However, there is still a great deal of double payment, and the Government have done nothing whatever to redress that problem. The Government have acknowledged that that happens, yet they continue to pour money in that direction. When the civil servants appeared before the Select Committee recently to discuss the problem, they said that there had been a deliberate political decision by Ministers to double-fund GM schools because that was their political preference and they wanted to reward schools that went in that direction.
The extent of the double-funding on an annual grant basis is £13·6 million. The highest beneficiary is St. Bartholomew's school in Newbury, which benefited to the extent of more than £200,000. Obviously, that did not pay off in terms of the by-election result in that area. I have not had an opportunity to find out whether any schools in the Christchurch area have had the advantage of double funding—perhaps the Government have already given up on Christchurch.
There has been a stunning silence from the Government as to why grant-maintained schools are being double-funded at a time when public expenditure is so tight. It is clear from paragraph 22 of the Select Committee report that
The Government's plans for capital spending on schools appear to us to favour the GM sector rather than the LEA sector".
The Minister is nodding. That is an admission that education funding is determined by political and ideological soundness, not by education need. That is a disgraceful situation, and Ministers should be ashamed of it. If they had any real interest in the educational development of children, they would not tolerate it for one moment.
I return to the main point—the need for further scrutiny of grant-maintained schools with regard to both the money they receive and the way in which they spend it. Recently, the Audit Commission reported on some of the problems that LMS has created for many schools. The report detailed the way in which schools operate under LMS at present. We know from previous debates that all hon. Members support the principle of LMS.
We must all acknowledge that there are many problems in terms of the formulae that have been created and the many difficulties that have arisen as a result. The report shows that there has been an increase in the pupil-staff ratio. Since LMS was introduced, class sizes have increased. That is partly a problem of the formulae and partly a problem of the arrangement that was imposed by Ministers with regard to the payment of staff salaries. Nevertheless, it is a significant problem that should be addressed in the future. It is right that the Audit Commission should be able to identify such problems with regard to local authority schools. It is also right for the Audit Commission to examine GM schools, identify such problems and warn us that those problems are arising.
The Audit Commission report highlighted many of the anomalies, difficulties and problems that have arisen from LMS in terms of the tendering process and letting contracts. The press picked on the more sensational


aspects of the report, such as the odd occasions when head teachers let contracts to relatives and improprieties of that sort. Obviously, such matters should be brought into the open.
There is a clear need for such constraints and scrutiny to apply to grant-maintained schools as well as schools in the local authority sector. Therefore, we do not accept that the amendment tabled by the Minister is an adequate substitute for amendment No. 177, which was passed in another place. The advantage of amendment No. 177 is that its intention and wording are clear, and it provides for a proper basis for scrutiny. The Minister's amendments fudge the real issue. They do not ensure the level of scrutiny that we require. Given all that has been said recently by the Prime Minister, Ministers in the Cabinet and junior Ministers about the need to remove secrecy from all levels of Government, it is about time that Ministers sought to remove secrecy from quangos and those who benefit from the money distributed by quangos.
The Funding Agency for Schools will have a great deal of power and money at its disposal. It already has. It is essential that every aspect of public funding is open to the fullest scrutiny. We do not believe that the Minister's amendments will achieve that aim. We believe that Lords amendment No. 177 in particular should become part of the Bill because it will ensure a higher level of public accountability and we should be responsible for ensuring that that is achieved.

Mrs. Mahon: I shall speak to amendment No. 177, which deals with value for money, and touch on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on double funding.
Two years after the Government introduced changes to allow schools to opt out, we face a potential crisis in Calderdale local authority. The entire council structure is being undermined by the Government's changes. So alarmed are councillors from all parties that, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, Calderdale council is to spearhead a national campaign to highlight the unfairness of the funding of grant-maintained schools. I may add that scrutiny and accountability come into that campaign.
Tory-led Calderdale council claims that the current formula pumps thousands of pounds a year into grant-maintained schools at the expense of schools that remain under local authority control. From the way in which the Minister nodded, I suppose that he thinks that that is all right. It is worth emphasising that the campaign has all-party support and that the council is at present run by the Conservatives.
I have already told the Minister the position of the ex-mayor on the matter. The ex-mayor said:
The education department had been placed in a financially perilous position by the opting-out legislation. A third of all secondary schools are now grant maintained in Calderdale and the proportion could rise to almost half by April next year.
He also said:
If we do not do something about it, we could be committing our schools to a potentially disastrous situation.
It is vital that we achieve the scrutiny and accountability that Lords amendment No. 177 would provide. The truth about the current unfairness in the financing of grant-maintained schools is that it takes place at the expense of local authority schools. I see the Minister nod in approval again. Grant-maintained schools are also

receiving extra capital. They receive a far more generous allocation of resources than the equivalent local education authority schools. Other LEA services are being deprived of resources to provide the additional funding for schools which have received grant-maintained status. Opposition Members believe that that is simply unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury referred to capital grants. Earlier this year in Calderdale, we saw the real face of the Government's ideological commitment to one type of education, when they granted three grant-maintained schools in Calderdale over £400,000 in capital grants while the other 109 LEA schools received thousands of pounds less. One grant-maintained school received £225,000, which was £20,000 more than the other 109 schools put together. That is wrong.
What does the Minister have against children in LEA schools? Why do the Government discriminate in that way? Why did that one school receive £225,000 more than all the other 109 put together? It is simply unfair. I submit that it was simply a crude bribe to encourage the other schools to opt out as they became desperate for funding

Mr. Don Foster: In November 1992, the Secretary of State categorically stated:
Grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools must operate on equal terms."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 651.]
Is the hon. Lady surprised to hear that, in view of what she has been saying?

Mrs. Mahon: We have clear evidence that the Government do not intend all schools to operate on equal terms

Mr. Steinberg: What the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said seems remarkable. I am a member of the Education Select Committee. We wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what was the policy on capital expenditure in opted out schools. He categorically said that it was the Government's policy to ensure that opted-out schools received more money for capital expenditure than LEA schools. That was in a letter which he wrote to all members of the Select Committee. So he appears to say one thing at one time and something else at another time.

Mrs. Mahon: That shows that the Government are willing to use children and their education as political footballs.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers, governors and parents of the excellent Ryeburn comprehensive school in Calderdale in my constituency who resisted the bribe. They voted two to one against opting out. The school was built for 600 pupils and now has more than 1,150. It is bursting at the seams. If there was accountability in distributing capital grants, the school would have more than qualified for the extra money that the Minister gave out so liberally to the other schools.
I ask the Minister now whether he will treat Ryeburn school as generously as he treated Crossley Heath school, which received more grant than the rest of the schools put together and, if not, why not? He must answer that question because the children at those schools are all his responsibility.
I have with me a report which I intend to send to the Minister after tonight's debate on the Lords amendments. It was produced by the financial department of Calderdale council and it deals with the financial implications for the


local education authority of grant-maintained schools. I ask the Minister to consider it carefully. It exposes the double standards—it is factually correct—if what is happening in Calderdale.
The report expresses doubt about double funding. The extra money that goes to grant-maintained schools comes from an already grossly underfunded local education authority budget. It is a shrinking budget, thanks to the Government's cuts. Since 1979, we have lost about £160 million in grant from the Government. We were also unfairly poll tax-capped. But the inadequate budget for LEA schools has to provide for school meals, special needs and a host of other essential services for all LEA schools. It provides no luxuries.
I submit that the Government are deliberately creating a two-tier system of funding. I can only conclude that their aim is to produce a segregated schools system. That will damage children's education. If Calderdale becomes the pilot for the funding agency, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury that parents will have to deal with Government appointees to a remote, unaccountable, secret quango. What will parents do when they want to appeal about which school their children attend or to complain about something?
Next year, the LEA schools in Calderdale will face the possibility that their delegated budgets will be cut to fund grant-maintained schools. That would be an absolute outrage. It would be grossly unfair to children, teachers. parents and governors.
I shall support the local authority's campaign, which will be led by a Tory education spokesman, to warn other authorities about exactly what is happening on the ground in terms of unfair, unaccountable funding and the creation of a two-tier system. If even a Tory council such as Calderdale recognises the iniquity of the system, there is something seriously wrong. Will the Government use the Bill's powers to end a potential disaster for children in Calderdale?

Mr. Andrew Miller: Several hon. Members have spoken about the Government's double standards in refusing to accept amendment No. 177. This is a fundamental issue and the principle seems to emerge in two areas. I suppose that we should be grateful that the Government are at least doing something consistent, but it is distasteful.
Like schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), none of the schools in my constituency has yet been persuaded, despite enormous bribes, to accept grant-maintained status. Indeed, Whitby high school recently voted firmly against grant-maintained status. Many parents and teachers have started to worry about the Government's double standards.
The Minister referred to the problems created by cutting across the role of the Audit Commission or the Public Accounts Committee. So what? Is not the essence of openness that those at the sharp end—the parents of the pupils and the teachers—should be entitled to the fullest information on what is happening in the school in question?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) commented on the Government's claim that they

seek to open society. Just last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—who, a moment ago, fortuitously popped in, heard 30 seconds of this debate and left—introduced a White Paper on openness in government. Do the Government intend to provide access to information just in Whitehall? Are we to learn only about who was spying for whom 50 years ago, or will the Government get down to openness in current issues that affect real people, such as children in our society?
The position can be compared to what is happening in the health service. I was recently berated by a Government employee—the chairman of a hospital trust—for having the temerity to publish a policy document from that hospital trust showing how £1·7 million-worth of cuts would be imposed. The public are entitled to such information.
In another area of the Government's dogmatic approach—the creation of grant-maintained schools—are not the public entitled to know precisely what is happening? The only conclusion that one can draw from those two examples in the education service and hospitals is that the Government have a particular form of double standards. They will happily tell the public about certain pieces of information but, when it comes to the cost of implementing policies based on sheer dogma, they will not tell the public what is happening.
I challenge the Minister to get his feet off the Dispatch Box and come clean. Is he simply saying that the only reason for keeping information about grant-maintained schools from the public domain is that it hides part of the Government's dogma and it would suit the Government not to tell? Everyone knows that that is so. If the Government were sincere, they would accept amendment No. 177.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to national health service trusts. May I draw his attention and, more important, that of the Minister to the importance, when applying for NHS trust status, of combining operational and financial details? As I said in Committee, if the governors were required, when applying for grant-maintained status, to provide full details of their financial projections for the next two or three years, that would go a long way towards resolving some of the concerns in schools.
I rise to speak because of the Minister's comments in introducing this string of amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 extend the Secretary of State's responsibility not only to consider, as members of the funding authorities, those with experience of voluntary and grant-maintained schools and special educational needs, but to consult the Church of Engand and the Roman Catholic Church before appointing members of the funding authorities. The Minister said that he did not believe that it was necessary to consult local education authorities in the same way as the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult those other bodies. He explained the rationale behind that as being that the funding authorities were set up to deal with grant-maintained schools.
Will the Minister reflect not on anything that I may say on the issue but on what he said at various stages during the Bill's passage? For example, at the Committee's third sitting, on 19 November 1992, he said:
In other words, the duty of the FAS to secure sufficient school places need not. and should not, operate where it is


economically more sensible for an LEA to make provision in that way."—[Official Report, Standing Committe E, 19 November 1992; c. 82.]
The Minister accepted the important liaison between the two bodies. At the eighth sitting, on 1 December 1992, he said:
Both bodies will be able to bring forward statutory proposals only in respect of their own sector. But, when considering the needs of their particular sectors, both bodies will have to take account of the provision that exists in the other sector.
Again at the eighth sitting, the Minister said:
LEAs will need to carry out a more strategic planning role in partnership with funding authorities, if we are to ensure that there are sufficient school places.
He went on to say:
An essential aspect of the activities of the funding agency for schools and of clause 7 is to provide a strategic planning framework for the grant-maintained sector alongside that of the LEA."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1992; c. 337–39.]
At the 10th sitting, the Minister said:
I expected the funding agency for schools to work in close harmony with LEAs".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1992; c. 443.]

Mr. Forth: indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: Given that the Minister nods his head and acknowledges his earlier comments, it is difficult to understand why he is willing to accept that it is important and relevant to consult the Churches, but not the local education authorities, when appointing members to the funding authorities. Although none of us fully understands how it will work, he seemed to be saying that there will be a close working relationship between those two bodies at a local level. It therefore makes sense, if not to accept our proposal, which would allow people with experience of LEAs to work in the funding authorities, at least to agree to the detailed consultation.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred in her opening remarks to section 11 funding. That is a Home Office grant directed towards the teaching of English—largely on a one-to-one basis—to pupils who may not have English as their first language. That grant will cut in 1994–95 and 1995–96. Does the hon. Lady realise that those areas that typically receive that grant get a higher level of standard spending assessment, and they are free to redirect part of that SSA to teaching those children?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for asking that question and for allowing me to respond.
The pressures on schools that require assistance from section 11 funding are significant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, when the Home Office and the Department of Education boasted about increasing section 11 money, they could do so because they said that the money would contribute to the education of children who needed help at a critical stage in their learning of English as a second language. I hope that he agrees that removing section 11 funding will cause more problems for the eduation service. If the Government are to give money for reading recovery schemes, the money that will be required for those schemes will be far greater if section 11 funding is reduced.

Dr. Spink: I accept that section 11 funding is directed in a good area and is used effectively, as was reported by the Audit Commission a couple of years ago.
Does the hon. Lady agree with me on two points? First, LEAs have it within their powers to redirect part of their funds towards continuing the teaching to which she refers if that teaching is so important. Secondly, a large number of children are being presented to school without a word of English because, after they are born in this country, they are sent abroad to live until they are of school age; their parents then bring them back to this country to attend school. Does the hon. Lady think that that is a responsible way for parents in this country to treat their children? Are not the parents giving their children a disadvantage? Should the British taxpayer be footing the bill?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. First, local authorities do not have spare cash floating around that they can devote to replacing cuts in section 11 money, any more than they have spare cash for other reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the pressures that capping of local authorities is causing in many areas.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a point about children from ethnic minority backgrounds who were sent abroad before the age of five. My constituency has a large ethnic minority population and children are not sent away in the way that is suggested by the hon. Gentleman. That is not the reason the children have problems with the English language. The problem is that their home language is not English. If there were investment in nursery education and pre-school provision, there would be far fewer language problems. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, and what the Minister is doing in cutting section 11 funding, will cost the education service more in the long run.

Dr. Spink: The Minister is doing nothing of the sort. The grant to which the hon. Lady refers comes from the Home Office, not the Department for Education. No doubt the hon. Lady will look that up later.
I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to have this very important micro-debate within the general debate. The general debate is about driving up standards of education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dewsbury may laugh at me for saying that, but my constituents are not laughing. They want standards to be improved. They are fed up with a situation where three in 10 of this country's children leave school unable to read and write properly.
The debate focuses on the standards of education. The hon. Member for Dewsbury will know that grant-maintained schools deliver 30 per cent. more children with five or more graded GCSE passes and 30 per cent. better results on average than all other schools. The Government are promoting grant-maintained schools because they give choice, opportunity and diversity in education. That is the way to drive up standards, and that is why my constituents welcome grant-maintained schools.
In fact, my constituents have welcomed grant-maintained schools so much that every secondary school in my constituency and many of the primary schools are grant-maintained. South Benfleet primary school has just received a letter from the Minister, giving it permission to become grant-maintained from 1 September, and the school is delighted with that.

Mr. Oliver Heald: On the basis of my hon. Friend's experience with the many grant-maintained schools in his constituency, what advice would he give to schools that are considering whether to do so?

Dr. Spink: My advice is unequivocal—the schools should become grant-maintained as quickly as possible. It gives schools choice and the freedom to make decisions at a point where those decisions matter. It gives parents control over the education of their children. It brings real local democracy into schools, because grant-maintained schools are accountable every year to parent groups.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it can be difficult to get the good news about the advantages of grant-maintained schools to parents when LEAs use every possible obstacle? Does he further agree that the truth should go out? The benefits are undeniable and the three schools in my constituency that have become grant-maintained have not regretted the move. They are telling the good news to other parents, and the parents are listening.

Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for her remarks, with which I agree. Grant-maintained schools are so successful that, by April 1994, the trend shows that there will be 1,500 grant-maintained schools. At that point, the Government will need help to perform the functions that are needed to care for the public funds and to ensure that there is intense scrutiny and audit in the schools. The system would become increasingly inefficient and inappropriate if all executive tasks were carried out by the Department for Education. As the diversity of the provision spreads, LEAs will find it difficult to accomplish those tasks. I therefore welcome the establishment of a new statutory body, the Funding Agency for Schools.

Mr. Forth: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to a debate that has covered a wide range of subjects.
For me, the highlight of the brief debate came when the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the Funding Agency for Schools as a "remote body"—I think that was the term she used. She is obviously unaware that the funding agency is based in York. It strikes me that for her of all hon. Members to make that reference is charmingly eccentric, and I shall put it no higher than that—I shall leave the hon. Lady to account for her remark.
The hon. Member for Halifax also made a lot about the differences in the Government's approach to funding the grant-maintained school sector and funding the LEA sector. Those of her hon. Friends who heard me speak in Committee will know that the Government have never made a secret of the fact that, in both capital and revenue terms, we have always sought to acknowledge the different role, nature and responsibilities of grant-maintained schools in their funding arrangements.
We have made no secret of the fact that the capital funding regime will recognise that. We have always sought to ensure that, in revenue terms, through the annual maintenance grant, grant-maintained schools receive more money than their LEA counterparts; they have to, because they carry greater responsibilities.
The cash protection provision—I think that that is what is causing such excitement among Opposition Members—rightly provides an element of protection

during schools' transition from their LEA incarnation to grant-maintained status. It is somewhat similar to the transitional arrangements that are rightly allowed for in local education authority local management of schools schemes, in respect of which provision is made to afford a degree of protection against violent oscillations or variations in the amount of money available to schools from year to year.

Mrs. Mahon: May we get this clear? Is the Minister saying that it is all right if local education authority schools have their delegated budgets cut next year to fund the handful of grant-maintained schools? Does he believe that that is right?

Mr. Forth: As I told the hon. Lady earlier, I am saying that it is for local education authorities to assess their own priorities and make their own arrangements, through their LMS formulae and through the funding for education in their areas, in respect of which they have a great deal of flexibility. That continues to be the case.

Mr. Don Foster: The House deserves greater clarification than the Minister has given the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The hon. Lady has teased out of the Minister his acceptance that, during the undefined transitional period, grant-maintained schools get additional money to protect them. As the Minister well knows, that money comes from the local education authority. That means that an LEA's remaining schools suffer as a result of the additional transitional costs, which the Minister has now accepted exist.
I have another question. Does the Minister accept that, in revenue terms, grant-maintained schools should receive only such additional money as is commensurate with their additional responsibilities—or will they receive money in addition to that extra money?

Mr. Forth: We have always said that the additional money available on a revenue basis to grant-maintained schools was designed to reflect their additional responsibilities. I make no secret of that. It does not have to be teased or forced out of me; I say it gladly.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister said previously that that is what the additional income should he for. How, then, can he justify the many variations and the clear duplications in funding that have been thrown up by many surveys? Does he think it right that grant-maintained schools should be not only compensated for extra administrative costs but double-funded?

Mr. Forth: I glory in variation. The fact that our White Paper was entitled "Choice and Diversity" and that, as has been said, we welcome specialisation means that I can readily accept what the hon. Lady says. I would go further: we have always welcomed the enormous variation in local management of schools schemes and formulae up and down the country. I think that I am right in saying that no two local education authorities in the land have identical LMS schemes. I do not shrink from—indeed, I positively welcome—the fact that there is a variety and diversity of provision in different authorities and different grant-maintained schools. Given that grant-maintained school funding is closely tied to the LEA funding—and will continue to be so. even under the common funding formula—that degree of variation will continue.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, since 1979–80, funding per pupil in primary and secondary schools has increased by 45 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that LEA schools have received their fair share of that real terms increase and that education has benefited while pupil-teacher ratios have fallen?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The only gloss that I would put on it, following my previous point, is that there are rightly variations between LEAs, some of which choose to fund way below their education SSA—which I know is only an indicative figure—and others of which choose to fund above it. That variation exists throughout the country. We can all have our own thoughts about it and, from time to time, one is tempted to draw attention to individual authorities that behave rather peculiarly in that respect. Nevertheless, the variations remain.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth: I shall give way once more; then I want to reply to other hon. Members.

Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister now answer my question? Will he defend the £13·6 million in double funding that has been proved to take place? Does he think that that is a wise use of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Forth: Yes.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made much play of the need for openness. Had he sat through the long dark hours of the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, he would have heard me speak at some length about non-departmental public bodies. I debated with people in my office whether I should bring with me today the document that I had at my disposal then. I thought that I would not need it on this occasion. I wish that I had brought it, because I could have displayed it proudly, as I did then.
That document sets out in great detail the responsibilities of the NDPBs, of which the Funding Agency for Schools is one. Those Opposition Members who suffered with me—I am sorry, who enjoyed with me—the long proceedings of that Committee will be able to tell the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston the extraordinary extent to which those bodies are obliged to report and to make public their financial affairs and many of their other activities.
That ties in with the openness that now exists in relation to grant-maintained schools—in some respect, much greater openness that occurs with LEA schools. Grant-maintained schools have to hold annual general meetings and produce annual reports. They have to produce annual accounts, which have to be audited and be available for public scrutiny. I would argue that the openness of the regime is there for all to see—at the level of schools and the funding agency, which will be constrained by the rules referring to NDPBs. There is great openness in the scheme, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston should welcome it.

Mr. Stephen Byers: In that spirit of openness, will the Minister agree to place in the Library a copy of the internal report of his own chief accountant on the abuse of public money by the Grant Maintained Schools Centre?

Mr. Forth: If I am not mistaken, that document has been made available to the Public Accounts Committee in commercial confidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] No, no, no. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the other day, distinctions are rightly made between matters that are properly in the public domain and matters that need not be in that domain. I make no apology for that. I wholly agree with the distinction that my right hon. Friend made.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to quote me in extenso. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, I always enjoy hearing my own words— especially pearls of wisdom of the kind uttered by me at many different sittings of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman made much play of the fact that the Funding Agency for Schools would be expected to co-operate with local education authorities and to exchange information with them as required in the Bill.
I do not know whether we ever sorted out the difference between shared and parallel duties, although in the end I think that we understood very well what they meant. All that is right. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that simply because different bodies have duties and obligations to work together, they should be cross-represented—that it is necessary for members of one body to serve on the other to achieve that degree of co-operation and that exchange of information.
I believe that the degree of co-operation to which we referred in Committee should be achievable on the basis that we have identified. I think that we were right to make the concession that is contained in the Lords amendment— with which I hope the House will agree—which is designed to ensure that there is proper representation from the Churches, which are an important element, albeit a distinct element, very different from local education authorities and grant-maintained schools. That much I believe, but we cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Bath wanted us to go.
I hope that, in the brief time available, I have answered the substantive points made by Opposition Members and that, in so doing, I have brought out the important distinctions, made across different areas, referred to in the amendments. I felt, if I may say so, that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston brushed aside the point that I made earlier about value for money and the concern that I expressed about possible infringement of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Gentleman was almost cavalier about it. We must surely pay attention to the role, as defined and understood, of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as we must of the role of our own Public Accounts Committee.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's amendment honours that important—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 19

"GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS"

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 9, line 11, leave out ("new").

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may consider also Lords amendments Nos. 39, plus the Opposition motion to disagree, and Nos. 40 to 42, 45, 166, 371, 409, 422 to 425, 541 and 547.

Mr. Squire: I noted that in an earlier debate my fellow Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), felt that he must apologise for joining the proceedings of the Education Bill halfway through. If he felt that he needed to apologise for turning up at the eleven-and-a-halfth-hour, I must make more apologies— but I do so with enthusiasm.
I shall be brief, because I suspect that several hon. Members may wish to speak. The Government believe that the other place was right to remove the threshold of the 10 per cent. trigger point so that promoters could present their own proposals to set up a new grant-maintained school anywhere in the country. That will promote choice and diversity for parents and pupils—one of the key elements of our educational reform.
The other place decided, and we agree, that the Bill as originally drafted was unfair on those who wish to propose the establishment of new grant-maintained schools in areas where there is currently few or indeed no grant-maintained schools. I hope that hon. Members will not support the Opposition's motion to disagree, to which we obviously look forward. We cannot agree with the view that some promoters should be prevented from putting forward their own proposals simply because they happen to be in areas where it is unlikely that there would be any GM schools in the foreseeable future.
My right hon. Friend will look closely at all applications for new GM schools, and in doing so will continue to apply broadly similar criteria to those that apply when promoters wish to establish a new voluntary school. In line with our policy of tackling the problem of surplus places, my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the need for additional school places in the area, as well as denominational need where appropriate. Promoters will have to demonstrate that there will be a projected shortage of places in the LEA and GM sectors in the near future.
We shall consider whether a school is able to provide the national curriculum and offer equal opportunities to girls and boys. We will need to see that the premises are suitable, and will note whether the funding authority supports the proposals.

Mr. David Jamieson: Will the Minister confirm that amendment 397, on which we have just agreed, in effect gives power to the funding agency to obtain compulsory purchase orders to provide land for private promoters of schools? Has he thought of all the ramifications that that could have?

Mr. Squire: With the leave of the House, I will willingly come back to the specific question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a significant difference

between the role of the promoters and that of the funding agency. The amendment refers to the promoters and not to the funding agency.
I was about to say that amendments Nos. 25, 42, 166, 371, 422, 423, 425, 541 and 547 are all technical, to ensure that promoters are able to propose the establishment of new GM schools, including establishing a new GM school in place of existing independent schools. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wish to carry on where the Minister left off in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). I hope that he will take my hon. Friend's remarks seriously, because he raised an important point in this context. My hon. Friend referred to schedule 1, which says:
The Secretary of State may authorise a funding authority to compulsorily purchase any land required for the purpose of implementing any proposals under section 45 or 92 of the Act which are required to be implemented.
Of course, there is a further amendment which extends that power of compulsory purchase to the promoter, to which my hon. Friend referred.
I hope that the Minister understands that one of the promoters, who proposed the group of amendments that we are discussing, expressed the view that failing independent schools—those that cannot make a living in the independent sector—should be allowed to opt into opting out. Those independent schools would be able to ask the Secretary of State for power, in effect, compulsorily to purchase land owned by the local authority. That has serious consequences.
Without casting any aspersions on the Minister's knowledge of the Bill, let me say that he clearly did not know that that was the case. A major power is being given to independent schools. The Minister should seek some guidance from his officials at this stage, because it is ridiculous to propose something with such far-reaching consequences.
For example, an independent school could propose, through the Secretary of State, that it take over a cricket field from the local authority. It could decide that that cricket field was surplus to requirements and then begin to develop part of it for housing developments or whatever, and gain the advantage of those capital receipts. That would be an abuse of the system, but one entirely consistent with the reading that we are able to make of the Bill, as it stands amended at that late stage in the Lords. The Minister ought to respond to the House.
We were told when the Bill was introduced that it was about giving schools back to parents to ensure that parents had control of schools. When the Bill completed Second Reading, Committee and Report, we were assured that the funding agency would begin to have any role only once the 10 per cent. threshold had been reached by those schools that had chosen to opt out of local authority control. The Minister justified that by saying that it was right and proper that parents vote for that change and, in the end, that should bring into being the funding agency.
The Minister has told us tonight, however, that any ideas that the funding agency should come into being because of parental demand have gone out of the window. The Minister said that it would be unfair on promoters, if they were not allowed to develop schools in areas where "it is unlikely there will be grant-maintained schools in the foreseeable future."


In those areas where parents do not want those schools and where parents may vote consistently against such schools, the Minister is saying that he will defer to any little clique in that area with no involvement and no direct interest—it may not even be in that area—who may say that they do not care what the parents think, that they do not care about the local views of the merits or demerits of opt-out schools.
An amendment tabled by Lord Skidelsky led to the tabling of the group that we are now considering. He made his position clear on a number of issues: for instance, in discussing the type of school that should be allowed to come under the aegis of the Bill, he made it clear that what he was considering bore no relation to Ministers' earlier assurances in the House of Commons. He said:
First, we have in mind existing independent schools which wish to obtain state funding.
It is plain that, in its present form, the Bill allows independent schools to do just that. Many independent schools are dependent on the assisted places scheme, but their financial margins are diminishing. Such schools— which may now be feeling the cold winds of recession as fee-paying pupils become harder to attract—will be thrown a lifeline by the Bill, and by the ideological persuasions of Lord Skidelsky and Conservative Members of the House of Commons. It is outrageous that we should bail out such schools.
Lord Skidelsky went on:
The second type of school that I have in mind is one that does not exist at the moment but one which could be started and would be started to take advantage of a market opportunity if funding were available.
That is clear language. The noble Lord referred not to the educational needs of young people, or to the need for skills, training and all the other things that most of us used to think schools were for, but to "a market opportunity".
He continued:
What kind of promoters are likely to be attracted to setting up new schools? Some will be religious bodies, some … will he groups of parents, while others will be entrepreneurs either as individuals or organised into companies".
That does not even leave us the concept associated with the city technology colleges—the concept of sponsorship by great commercial names such as Dixons, which saw this as simply a marketing opportunity. It is now envisaged that entrepreneurs will move into education. Does that mean that the Government now intend grant-maintained schools to become part of the profit-making enterprise and business system? That, after all, was Lord Skidelsky's instruction to them.

Ms Estelle Morris: Did not Lord Skidelsky also contradict the Government's policy on surplus places? He said that, in the spirit of entrepreneurism, he would provide the places that parents wanted. That would run contrary to any notion of rationalising surplus places throughout local education authority areas. In accepting Lord Skidelsky's amendment and advancing a proposal along similar lines, have not the Government adopted a policy that conflicts with their established policy on ridding the system of surplus places?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right; moreover, she has anticipated what I was about to say. I hope that the Minister is paying attention, because this is an important point.
Lord Skidelsky's vision of a brave new world of education featured more than entrepreneurs and failed independent schools drifting into the opted-out sector. He said that, as things stood,
There will not be any new grant-maintained schools established, or at best just a token few.
There are two main reasons for this. The first was given by the Secretary of State in another place when he said that he would consider applications for new schools to enter the state sector only if there were no surplus places in the area concerned. This is an old departmental orthodoxy. Applications to supply new places will he entertained only if there is a so-called basic need.
Lord Skidelsky said:
an overall surplus of places is quite consistent with the existence in parts of the country of shortages of schools which parents want their children to attend.
He added, however, that the Government must place emphasis on "demand, not supply". The amendments that he tabled—proposals replicated in the Bill as it now stands —were designed to achieve that end.
We know that the 10 per cent. rule has now been abolished. We know that Lord Skidelsky and others who —like the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch—were sympathetic to the market-oriented view were happy to accept the argument that promoters should be allowed to come in at any stage. The House of Lords was happy—as are the Government tonight—to accept that independent schools should be able to come in. Will the Minister now tell us where in the Bill is a guarantee that, in areas where grant-maintained schools are unlikely to be established otherwise, such schools can be created only if there are no surplus places? As far as I know, no such guarantee exists in writing.
7.15 pm
The Minister may say that the Secretary of State has given such a commitment. The Secretary of State gave a commitment that no promoter would be allowed to introduce a new grant-maintained school below the 10 per cent. threshold; that promise has gone out of the window, as have so many of the promises incorporated in the Bill in Committee and on Report. The Secretary of State's word is worth almost nothing.

Ms Estelle Morris: Less than 10 per cent.

Mr. Lloyd: Indeed—especially in the light of the pressure imposed on the Secretary of State by the House of Lords and the DFE, whose voices, ultimately, are louder than that of the Secretary of State. Normally, he gives way to such pressure.
The Minister must convince us that we have any reason to believe that the Secretary of State is big enough to stand up to those who favour market forces. In the speech that I quoted earlier, Lord Skidelsky said:
there are the awesome requirements relating to school premises. At present there are independent schools occupying premises which would be called unsatisfactory but which nevertheless achieve very good education for their children. Others may comply fully with fire, safety and health regulations but fail to meet the required square meterage per pupil, or some other provision of the 1991 school premises regulations."—[Official Report, House of Lords: 22 April 1993, Vol 544, c. 1812–14.]
I assume that Lord Skidelsky meant that schools now occupying premises that would he deemed unsatisfactory were precisely the schools that did not comply fully with the fire, safety and health regulations. The Government's new approach to accommodation standards suggests that people such as Lord Skidelsky are right. That is why the


Secretary of State is now consulting on a number of aspects of accommodation. Those are what Lord Skidelsky has described as the "hassle costs" of entering education and those are the ideas of a Government who talk of an entrepreneurial view of education and the marketing need of those who wish to enter the system.
The amendments are simply an extension of the confusion already written into the Bill. We know that they are designed to bail out the failing independent schools; we know that they are designed to allow unrepresentative people—perhaps even commercial bodies—to become involved in education. The Minister shakes his head, but he has a long way to go if he is to identify provisions in the Bill that will prevent that.
We know that, basically, the Government are in the business of bowing to those who want market forces to dictate the position and we know that the Minister can give us no guarantees that surplus places will ultimately prevent the existence of grant-maintained schools: he and his colleagues are intent upon producing a grant-maintained revolution. There will be planning confusion between local authorities and the funding agency at a much earlier stage, because the funding agency need not consult a local authority when a promoter puts forward a school below the 10 per cent. barrier.
Nothing in the Bill forces either promoter or funding agency to consult local authorities properly. The confusion in the planning mechanisms on which we insisted in the Bill's early stages—a confusion that Ministers said could not happen—is not being removed, but actively extended. Amendment No. 371 concerns the position where an independent school can no longer make its living in that sector, and comes running for aid from an ideologically sympathetic Government, who will prop up failure in the independent sector at the taxpayer's expense.
The Government have made it clear that, uniquely, when people who are employed by independent schools transfer to schools in the grant-maintained sector—the opted-out schools—the transfer of undertaking provisions will come into force and offer protection to those teachers and other staff. I asked in Committee on a number of occasions why that protection could not be given to teachers in local authority schools who found themselves transferred to grant-maintained schools. We were told at that time that that could not be done and that it was not necessary. Why do we have such an odd contrasting approach? Why will those in the independent sector be given protection and those in the local authority sector denied it?
The Minister will understand why we believe that, in many respects, this is an ideological Bill. Fundamentally, the Bill is not about extending choice to parents. The Under-Secretary of State for Schools has already said that, where parents reject the option of grant-maintained schools, he will allow promoters to put forward plans for those schools. The Under-Secretary of State for Education looks puzzled about that. Perhaps he was not here when his colleague said that it would be unfair to deny promoters an opportunity to establish grant-maintained schools in areas where their establishment was otherwise unlikely.
Parents do not want grant-maintained schools, but the Government say that we have to have them. This is an

ideological Bill, and the amendments are ideologically inspired. The Minister and his colleagues have caved in to the lunatic Tory right in the House of Lords; they have given in to those who think that education is like a tin of baked beans, a commodity to be bought and sold. That is not the case.
Many Conservative Members must be squirming in their seats. They know that the Government, following pressure from the right wing in the House of Lords, have now ratted on the promises they made when the Bill was going through its initial stages. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Ms Estelle Morris: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
There was a lot of argument in Committee about whether the funding agency should be responsible for providing schools in an area. We spent many sittings deciding whether the entry point at which the agency should share provision of providing places should be 10 per cent., or more or less. There was general agreement that 10 per cent. was an arbitrary figure.
A study of the Hansard report of the Committee stage, however, reveals that the Government always said that 10 per cent. did at least reflect parental wishes within an area. When the point was reached at which 10 per cent. of parents in an area had children in grant-maintained schools, it was stated that the funding authority had the right to provide education in that area. The amendment lessens that democratic accountability, little as it was.
The funding agency will now operate within an area where less than 10 per cent. of parents have expressed a wish for a school to opt for grant-maintained status. We may see a situation where zero per cent. of parents in an area have expressed a wish for their children to be educated in a grant-maintained school, yet they will find that the funding agency still intervenes.
How can the Government equate that scenario with their expressed desire to make parental wishes count in their plans for education in the next decade? That exposes the Government's claim that they are there to reflect parental wishes as the myth that we have always supposed it to be.
It is worrying that the schools set up by promoters in an area will then contribute to an educational provision locally—they will be responsible for 10 per cent. or up to 75 per cent. of pupils—and contribute to the funding agency. They may share the responsibility for securing places in schools or take over that responsibility altogether.
The democratic deficit inherent in the Bill will be worsened, because it now seeks to get the funding agency operating in an area by the back door. One of the most disappointing things for those of us involved in education, in observing the way that the Government have acted over the past few years, is that they have moved from their stated aim of trying to reflect parental wishes and letting people exercise choice about who should run their schools. After a series of decisions, the Government now openly say, "We have every intention, through any means in our power, of making sure that the LEAs have less power, and that the funding agency and central Government become the organisations with responsibility for securing educational provision in an area."
First the Government weighted funding towards grant-maintained schools—to encourage schools to


become grant-maintained—and then the full force of Government propaganda was exercised at parents to encourage them to vote that their school should be grant maintained. Those two actions failed to secure the desired numbers of grant-maintained schools in given areas, so the Government now intend to start grant-maintained schools within an area whether or not parents have expressed a wish for such schools or for the funding agency to operate.
Gone are the heady days when the Bill was about parental choice and reflecting local wishes. The amendment represents the end of a long line of Government changes, because—as we always suspected —the Government have every intention, by whatever means, of removing an LEA's ability to provide schools in an area. The intention is to transfer that task to the hands of an undemocratic, unelected, funding agency and central Government.
New schools can now be established in an area where the responsibility for dealing with surplus places and making sure that education is provided for children, still rests with the LEA, yet the provider of that new school will not have a responsibility to consult with the LEA before deciding to set it up. The LEA will have the legal responsibility for getting rid of surplus places and the statutory responsibility for providing places for children in an area. An individual may come along, however, and set up a grant-maintained school without having any statutory responsibility to consult the LEA about whether that is desirable or whether surplus places need to be taken into account. That represents another means of removing from the LEAs a job that they have done successfully for many years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, Lord Skidelsky made it clear in his comments in the House of Lords that his amendment was concerned with making it possible for existing independent schools to obtain state funding should they wish to do so. He argued against surplus places. He brought into the open the right-wing argument that education is about the marketplace; it is all about schools filling places; if they cannot fill those places, they go to the wall.
It will be seen from the debacle this summer about the marketplace, testing and league tables, that that is not the way forward for our schools, and will not drive standards up. That is not what parents, teachers and communities want. The Government should learn a lesson from that. They should accept our amendment tonight, and not the arguments of their right-wing friends in the other place. They should say that what they want is a rationalisation of surplus places; that they want the LEAs to fulfil properly their role in providing sufficient places in their given areas. They should make it clear that they do not want to pursue marketplace economics and marketplace education, but that they will provide the suitable education for our children in the future.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In Committee, I suggested that the threshold should be done away with, so I welcome the fact that the House of Lords has seen fit to do that. The Government were wrong originally in saying that the variety that can be provided by people who want to set up grant-maintained schools can be achieved only if there is a general expression of interest in grant-maintained schools in an area, thereby denying it to others. That may have been administratively convenient, but it is not a logical way to extend choice and diversity,

which is what the Bill is all about. Baroness Blatch and her fellow peers have done a service for choice and diversity in education. I hope that that will be the outcome.
7.30 pm
I was under the impression that, whether we call the process right-wing market forces or not, good education mainly comes about if children are taught in the schools that parents think appropriate for their children. I should like to see, as a result of the Bill, specialisation in individual schools and different types of schools, whether they are in the grant-maintained sector or local authority. I happen to know that quite a few schools, which I regard as extremely rigorous in terms of the kind of education that they provide, would like to move into the grant-maintained sector but would have been barred by that previous 10 per cent. rule.
That is true of some Church schools. It seems illogical that in some parts of the country there are empty spaces in church schools yet there is a huge demand outside the area for such schools. If schools, whether denominational or specialist, are unable, throught the lifting of the threshold, to set up as grant-maintained schools, the parents should have the opportunity to find a place for their children at the school of their choice and, as a result, get the standards of education that they desire.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is worrying that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the Bill. Nothing about the lifting of the 10 per cent. rule will allow a school to apply for opted-out status which the unamended Bill would have prevented. For individual schools, the mechanism is the ballot. The 10 per cent. refers to something different. The hon. Gentleman should look at what the Bill says, because he is not supporting the Government on this. Any school can apply to opt out as long as the parents vote on that. the 10 per cent. rule is not involved.

Mr. Coombs: I appreciate that, but it is precisely those parts of the country where 10 per cent. of schools under the previous provision had not opted for grant-maintained status that would be debarred from setting up a grant-maintained school. That was an artificial restriction that has now been removed by the House of Lords.
I would not like to see the amendment as a means of moving into the public sector those independent schools that are not able to attract sufficient parents in order to be successful. That would be wrong, and I am sure that the Government do not intend it to be such. I see the amendment as a means of allowing schools that are successful, but are not able, for financial or other reasons, to move into an area where there would be a demand for their places, and I can think of examples in my constituency. That would extend choice and diversity, and would therefore be good for standards of education.
I caution my hon. Friend on one of the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) about the powers provided for compulsory purchase by the funding agency. Like him, I would not like to see that as a licence for property development for new grant-maintained schools. I should like to hear the Minister say that he will insist that if compulsory purchase were allowed—to which I have an ideological aversion —by the funding agency for the new grant-maintained schools, it would be accompanied by conditions that would not allow that abuse to take place in future.

Mr. Jamieson: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) tell the House that he is not in favour of the 10 per cent. threshold. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall him voting for it in Committee and again in the House later on. I am glad that, although we may disagree on that, we agree on the compulsory purchase of land, particularly in the case on which I will dwell in a moment.
The amendments are about the failed policy for going grant-maintained. The Government have realised that their policy has failed and have brought in measures during the passage of the Bill to try to prop it up and encourage more schools to become grant-maintained. I recall that Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, promised that, by April 1992, half the schools in this country would be grant-maintained. We have somewhere near 1,000 schools, which is a long way short of the promised 12,000. That was one of the many broken Government promises about which I am rather pleased.
The policy has failed despite all the bribes that have been given to grant-maintained schools and all the cajoling that has gone on in Tory local authorities—in the days when we had Tory local education authorities. Pressure has been applied in various ways to grant-maintained schools. For example, we have heard the Minister tell us this evening that he is in favour of extra funding going to those schools. In answer to a question, he said that he thought that that was wise.
Amendment No. 39 would bring into the Bill more incremental change to allow grant-maintained schools to come about more easily—in this instance, of course, without any recourse even to parental ballots. We had already abandoned the idea of LEAs or people through their local councillors having a say. Now we are moving down the road of not even having recourse to a ballot of parents with children in those local schools. That will be a recipe for total education anarchy in certain areas. If I may resurrect an expression that both Ministers may have forgotten—one was not with us for part of the Committee proceedings and the other was not there at all—it will create chaos and confusion.

Lady Olga Maitland: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about schools entering a state of chaos and anarchy. Can the hon. Gentleman name a single school that has gone grant-maintained and that has any regrets whatever? As far as I can see it, schools are leaping on board and parents cannot be held back.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady will remember that in Committee I gave one good example of a school in Dorset that wished that it had not gone grant-maintained. It was one of the first schools to opt out. A parent rang me and asked whether there was any way of going back. There are certainly such schools. If she will allow me to develop the point, she will see that the clause gives promoters of schools the power, through the funding agency and even, through compulsory purchase, to set up their own schools.
I hope that the Minister will take note of that point and in summing up perhaps even mention it. When schools are set up by promoters and have their land compulsorily purchased for them, will he be asking whether they are over-subscribed already in that area and whether there are empty school places? Will it be another recipe for the waste of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Robin Squire: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in full flow, as I know that it is an impressive sight, but I made that point clear in my opening remarks.

Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that the Minister is impressed by what I am saying. I hope that I shall be equally impressed by what he says when he winds up.
Entrepreneurs—they may be, as my hon. Friends have said, people who have already failed in independent or private schools—will be able to go to the funding agency before even the 10 per cent. point is reached and have land purchased on their behalf so they can set up their own grant-maintained schools.
Will the funding agency necessarily have any local knowledge of what is needed in the area? We know that it is already difficult for some of the larger education authorities, such as county authorities, to keep track of every single need in every area. What will the funding agency do for my part of the country, Cornwall, where there are no opted-out schools, or for Devon, where only I per cent. of schools have opted out? What will the funding gency—tucked away in York—know about people's needs and how it can respond sensitively?
The proposal's worst flaw is that it puts into the hands of private entrepreneurs—groups with no local accountability—the power to spend taxpayers' money without having to account to local people. All funding for such grant-maintained schools will come from the aggregate school budget and will not be available for other schools. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill for the right-wing prejudice of the people who put those clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Robin Squire: Let me begin by reiterating as strongly as I can that this is not an ideological Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Unless matters of standards and choice are ideology, and if they are, Opposition Members stand condemned by their own words. The debate on this part of the Bill is about a considerable and growing success story —that of the grant-maintained schools. That is the background, and I fear that the debate is underpinned by Opposition Members' inability to accept GM schools. In some areas they are even working against parents' applications to seek GM status. I think the House knows that.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that in my area—the Cambridgeshire local education authority—increasingly large numbers of schools are choosing not to opt out of local authority control? Recently, parents of pupils at Netherhall secondary school in Cambridge voted overwhelmingly to stay within the local education authority. Now that schools have seen through the Government's bribes, especially on funding, it is becoming increasingly transparent that they wish to stay with local authorities.

Mr. Squire: One of the differences between the hon. Lady and myself is that I am relatively relaxed if parents of pupils at a school ultimately vote no when all the facts have been put to them. I think that they are mistaken, but that is their choice. The hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Opposition Benches would deny parents that choice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Squire: Let me finish the point first.
I have no difficulty in defending a position where that choice should be extended. Even in the short time that I


have been a Minister in this Department, I have spoken to between 100 and 200 head teachers of GM schools. If the hon. Lady believes that the primary reason for schools adopting or proposing grant-maintained status is financial, she is severely mistaken. The people behind such applications are motivated by the greater freedom to determine their priorities.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has made a clear statement that he believes that the system should be motivated by parental choice. That debate obviously runs through the Bill, but his position is consistent with the line of rhetoric followed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. The Minister has to accept that the amendment that he wishes the House to agree to does nothing to encourage parental choice. It will mean that, in an area where parents have chosen consistently in every ballot not to have opted-out schools, the Minister and his colleagues will be able to allow a proposer to open a new school which will be opted out, counter to the wishes of any parent whose views have been assessed. How can he justify that?

Mr. Squire: Rather easily. Indeed, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), that is the distinction between individual ballots at individual schools, which I willingly concede will sometimes lead to no ballots, and the general position within an education authority area, which the hon. Member seems to overlook.
If the hon. Member and the Labour party had their way, they would deny anyone in any education authority that had not opted for their existing school to be grant-maintained in each of those separate ballots, the right to have a new GM school. That is the difference between us. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is denying parents the choice that the Government are prepared to extend to them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Squire: There seems to be a competition. I shall give way to the hon. Lady first.

Ms Estelle Morris: May I take the Minister back to some comments that he made when I tried to intervene a minute ago? He said that he was fairly relaxed about parents who chose not to opt out after a ballot on grant-maintained status and then stressed that the important thing was that they were given access to information about the choice that they were to make in the ballot. Will he therefore tell the House what the Government have done to tell parents about the benefits of staying with the local education authority before grant-maintained ballots?

Mr. Squire: It is my experience that local education authorities are generally not backward in explaining why they wish to retain schools. Even in provisions that we are not discussing in this block of amendments, there is nothing to prevent the LEA from making a reasonable case, as I am sure the authorities would anyway. The hon. Lady may have been referring to the fact that elsewhere the Bill seeks to prevent an unreasonable abuse of public spending by the LEA.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that something of a red herring is coming from Opposition Members, who suggest that

parents are applying for schools to opt out purely on financial grounds? Does he agree that parents are really looking for the freedom to manage schools as effectively as possible, to direct the most resources to where they should be targeted, so that there are more teachers per pupil, more books and better standards—in other words, less interference from the town hall tyrants?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has spoken to a number of head teachers and governors of GM schools and her wise words will have been heard by the House—at least by Conservative Members—with total support.

Several hon. Members: rose—

l9nt

Mr. Squire: I see that a queue is still forming. I shall allow interventions subject to time. If Opposition Members doubt that that is the view of schools that have gone grant-maintained, they cannot be visiting those schools.

Mr. Greg Pope: Under the terms of the Bill, governing bodies will be forced to discuss holding a ballot on opting out every year until parents decide to vote yes to opt out, when they will not be allowed to hold a ballot ever again to discuss opting back in. Where is the parental choice in that?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Member himself said that the Bill will provide for a choice by governors once every year and that they may exercise that choice in favour or against. I do not think I can improve on the answer that I gave.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister help to clarify what is beginning to be a confusion, in my mind at least? He agreed, as I understood it, with the comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who said that a grant-maintained school could have more books, more equipment, and more teachers. Yet, earlier in our debate, the Minister told us that a grant-maintained school gets additional money only for its additional responsibilities. Will the Minister explain that contradiction?

Mr. Squire: For one moment I thought that that question might be asked in innocence, but if the hon. Gentleman was twirling his cloak in front of me, expecting me to charge, he will be disappointed.
There were two separate elements in the hon. Gentleman's question. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was rightly talking about what I would describe as better husbandry, which is often, although not exclusively, evident in grant-maintained schools. Our policy allows those schools a greater say over their priorities than schools that are still reliant on the LEAs.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: Hold on—if the hon. Gentleman asks a question he should give me the chance to finish answering it.
The second point, which referred to earlier comments, was referring specifically to the fact that, as comparing GM to LEA schools, there are of course continuing functions, even under considerably devolved LMS budgets of LEAs, which are carried out by those LEAs and for


which, in GM schools, they must be responsible. For those functions, it is right and proper that they should have extra funding; that is the difference between the two.

Dr. Tony Wright: I am provoked by two factors. One is the Minister's reference to better husbandry. Every time he uses words like that—sometimes Conservative Members talk about higher standards in grant-maintained schools—does he not realise how profoundly insulting that is to the vast majority of schools?
Only 1 per cent. of the primary sector has opted out. Some 99 per cent. of primary schools in this country are in the maintained sector. Every time the Government and Conservative Members speak in the way they do, they insult by implication all the parents, head teachers, governors and teachers who are involved in those schools. That attitude will not do. It is time that we heard the Government and Conservative Members celebrate excellent schools, wherever they find them. They should end their silly ideological belief that only one type of structure produces results and another type does not.
When the Minister talks about saving money and greater costings, is he aware that vast quantities of public money have been transferred as a result of opting out? Just this week. I found out that £1 million has been transferred to the Electoral Reform Society. The Government pay money to run ballots which nobody wants, but which the Government insist must take place. When the results do not satisfy the Government, they fix the process to try to hold the ballot again. The Government must understand that that is not acceptable.

Mr. Squire: I am not sure that it would assist debate on the group of amendments if l were to go too far into the subject of the hon. Gentleman's questions. As someone who served for many years in a local authority and who was proud to lead that authority, I take no lessons from anybody about praise for local authority actions and the excellence of many local authority schools.
I should not even need to say that and the hon. Member does not assist his argument by raising the matter. He made his comments in the context of a debate which takes place primarily because Opposition Members refuse to accept any variation from LEA schools. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that nobody wants ballots. If my memory is correct, as of this morning, 954 separate schools have voted yes, so we presume that, in those instances, those ballots were welcome.
I shall repeat the assurances that I gave in my opening comments and which have been repeated in the other place about the guidelines that the Secretary of State will follow in considering applications. It has been made clear that surplus places have a prominent role in the guidelines. Even in the time that I have been a Minister, some applications for grant-maintained status have been declined on the grounds of the existing position on surplus places. We do not need to prove our position.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister is making an important point about a change of tack by the Department of Education on the issue of creating grant-maintained schools where there are surplus places. We had a serious problem in Gwent when two out of three applications for grant-maintained schools were allowed in

direct opposition to the county's plan to reduce surplus places. Will he give an assurance that, where a sponsor brings forward a plan for a grant-maintained school in an area where a local authority is looking at its surplus place problem, such an application will be dismissed out of hand?

Mr. Squire: I have looked at what I said at the beginning of the debate, which was that, specifically in line with our policy of tackling the problem of surplus places, my right hon. Friend would look carefully at the need for additional school places in the district as well as, where appropriate, denominational need. I said that promoters would have to demonstrate that there would be a projected shortage of places in the local education authority and grant-maintained sectors in the foreseeable future. If the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is a reasonable man, he will accept that as a reasonable position.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is a fundamental issue—it is not trivial. The Minister accepts that the issue of surplus places must be addressed. The words that he used are open to two interpretations: first, that the proposer must demonstrate that there is a shortage of places in the local authority and the grant-maintained sector taken together; or secondly, that the proposer has to demonstrate that there is a shortage in either the local authority sector or the grant-maintained sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked a straightforward question. If surplus places are available in an area, will the Secretary of State rule out any proposal out of hand? The question demands a yes or no and if the Minister is consistent he should say yes.

Mr. Squire: Most of the issues cannot be dealt with simply by saying yes or no. Without subjecting the House to a third attempt to read what I said, may I say that I specifically stated from the Dispatch Box that the subject of surplus places was important. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, in a prominent speech in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stressed the importance of tackling the problem of surplus places. He stressed the attention that the Secretary of State would give to that issue when applications were made—that is on record. We can add little to the exchange by pursuing the subject now.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) criticised the impact of the abolition of the 10 per cent. trigger and Implied that it would undercut the local education authority's planning role. That will not happen. The removal of that trigger will not mean that the Funding Agency for Schools immediately shares responsibility for providing new school places in every local authority district. That can happen only at the second stage. Most importantly, if it so chooses, the LEA will be a statutory objector to any or all such proposals. My right hon. Friend will consider carefully all statutory objections when considering any proposal from promoters for a new grant-maintained school.
The hon. Member for Stretford also commented on teachers' pay. He specifically asked why amendment No. 371 did not include a counterpart for teachers transferred from LEA schools when a school became grant-maintained. The answer is that clause 36 of the Bill provides for those increasingly common circumstances.
The answer to the question about compulsory purchase is a straightforward yes. The compulsory purchase powers


that we have provided responded specifically to the concerns expressed by the Churches, which wanted to ensure that land could be made available for new Church schools to parallel the position in the LEA sector, where the LEA can compulsorily purchase land. The relevant amendments simply ensure that the Funding Agency for Schools can discharge its statutory functions by having the power compulsorily to purchase, subject to the usual planning procedures and consent from the Secretary of State.
Sadly, our debate has revealed a refusal by the Labour party to recognise the great success of grant-maintained schools. That success is based not on Ministers' words, but on the achievement of those schools.
It is based on an increase in confidence and on the way in which the heads and parents at these schools are responding to the new challenges which the GM regime offers the schools.
What we said today may or may not affect the numbers of schools becoming grant maintained. I hope very much that it will increase the numbers that apply for GM status, because everything that I have seen so far convinces me that that status is the way, in the later part of the 20th century, in which we should arrange state education. The Bill improves our ability to deal with these matters and the ability of parents who want to take this step to do so. That can only help these schools and develop choice and maintain standards in the state system.
The Government are quite clear about this: we stand four square—

It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 38 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 39 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 176 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 177 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a), in lieu of Lords amendment No. 177, before clause 145, insert a new clause —Value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools—

'.—(1) Each funding authority shall make arrangements for carrying out such value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools in England or, as the case may be, Wales as in their opinion are required or as the Secretary of State may direct.
(2) The authority shall, in particular—
(a) in forming an opinion as to whether any value-for-money study is required to be carried out in pursuance of this section, have regard to the desirability of value-for-money studies being carried out at regular intervals, and
(b) in determining the scope of any value-for-money study to be carried out in pursuance of this section otherwise than on the direction of the Secretary of State, have regard to the scope of any value-for-money study which is being or has recently been carried out.
(3) In this section "value-for-money study", in relation to any grant-maintained school, means—
(a) any examination into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the governing body of the school have, in discharging their functions, used grant made by the authority, and
(b) any study designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of the school.'—[Mr. Forth.]

Read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 146

PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY GOVERNING BODY

Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 88, line 38, at end insert—
("() in relation to the planning of special educational provision as provided in section 151 or")

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With
this it will he convenient to consider also Lords amendments No. 188 and Government motion to disagree, No. 189 and Government motion to disagree, No. 190 and Government motion to disagree, No. 191 and Government motion to disagree, No. 192 and Government motion to disagree, No. 193 and Government motion to disagree, No. 196 and Government motion to disagree, No. 199 and Government motion to disagree, No. 209 and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although your predecessors in the Chair may have used the form of words that you have just used, when people come to read this debate, will they be able to see the selection sheet, or the list on the amendment paper? My impression is that, although the selection sheet is useful to us in the short term, it is not the sort of document that can just be quoted for the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is that we find it useful because it saves time.

Mr. Forth: The amendments move us on to part III of the Bill. The principal aim of part III is to improve the arrangements for all pupils who have special educational needs. The Government are determined that the new SEN regime should benefit all pupils with special needs—those with and those without statements—and that it will be fully compatible with the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill, and as agreed by the House and another place, for the management of schools generally.
Ever since we issued our consultation document "Access to the System" and our White Paper "Choice and Diversity" last summer, we have been at pains to listen carefully and with an open mind to all the views of those involved with children with special needs. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minster of State and I have discussed the issues over many meetings with representatives of the special needs organisations as well as with teachers in schools, mainstream and special, around the country. In particular, the Special Educational Consortium has played a constructive part in that dialogue. The Bill, as it incorporates the Government amendments made in another place, provides for the enhanced SEN regime which we want to see established.
Our principal aim will be to improve the arrangements for pupils who might need assessments and statements and to give additional rights to their parents while also dealing with provision for pupils who have special needs but do not require statements. Our proposals therefore assign important roles to both local education authorities and schools.
I want to make it clear that LEAs will retain substantial responsibilities in this area. They will conduct assessments and make statements. They will arrange appropriate


provision and ensure that it is closely monitored and reviewed. They may, as a result of a Government amendment, provide support services to all maintained schools. Until stage 3 of the development of the Bill's proposals, they will have important planning responsibilities for the provision of school places. At all stages, LEAs may establish new special schools and they must always keep the arrangements that they make under review.
Schools, too, have vital responsibilities to all pupils with special educational needs. All schools, LEA maintained as well as GM, are increasingly responsible for their own affairs. It is at the school level that parents and pupils have direct contact with those who can most effectively and quickly assess and meet special educational needs. Thus, all maintained schools will henceforth be required to draw up policies for all pupils with special needs and to report annually to parents on the implementation of those policies. Furthermore, their work will be inspected every four years, and inspectors will pay particular attention to the special educational provision that they make. Moreover, by introducing a code of practice, the Bill establishes a new common framework for special educational provision.
Both LEAs and—as a result of a Government Lords amendment—all maintained schools will be required to have regard to that code, which will therefore serve to promote common expectations and co-operation and consistency of practice among all directly concerned with SEN pupils. My right hon. and noble Friend and I have maintained that the code, provisions elsewhere in the Bill and our commitment to provide clear guidance to all interested parties make for a more coherent and comprehensive framework for the effective development and delivery of special educational provision in future.

Mr. Harry Greenway: How does my hon. Friend envisage local authorities being best able to provide these services? At present, local authorities have teams of educational psychologists with proper back-up. Will that remain in place and under the control of local authorities, or will it float away and turn into some other sort of arrangement?

Mr. Forth: By and large, that sort of provision will continue to be made by the local education authority, because we have ring-fenced this area of specialist provision and made it an exception to the usual trading restrictions that will be placed on LEAs—that is an important feature of what we have done. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the chance to stress it.
Some concern remained in another place that responsibility for special educational provision should be concentrated purely on LEAs. That is why the other place passed a number of amendments on the subject. I have no doubt that the intention was good, but I believe that the amendments went too far. Their fundamental effect would be to impose a duty on LEAs to plan all arrangements for special educational needs. That would severely erode the right of schools that have opted to leave their LEAs to run their own affairs. The Government cannot accept that; it cuts across the whole philosophy of GM schools.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister assure us that schools that prefer GM status—he said a few moments ago that he hoped that many more schools would choose it—and want

to "run their own affairs" will not exclude pupils with special educational needs, thereby imposing an even greater responsibility on LEAs?

Mr. Forth: Not as I understand the question. Our proposals in the Bill, together with the amendments tabled in lieu of the Lords amendments, will make the necessary provision for children with special educational needs, with or without statements, in the GM sector. That will run in parallel with provision in local education authority schools.
I accept the basis for the concern expressed in another place; indeed, my colleagues who take a great interest in these matters left my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me in no doubt about those concerns. That is why my right hon. Friend tabled amendments in lieu of those agreed in the other place. I hope that they will achieve the objectives that my hon. Friends have in mind and will also deal with the concerns that were expressed in another place. Those concerns gave rise to the Lords amendments, which go too far.
Amendment (a) would require the authority to consult the Funding Agency for Schools and the governing bodies of any maintained schools—local authority or grant maintained, mainstream or special—for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision. That duty would be part of the duty to keep their arrangements under review and would impose a clear requirement for the co-operation and consultation that the Bill envisages.
Amendment (b) would place a similar duty on the governors of maintained schools. They would be required to consult other governors, the authority and the funding agency for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision for their pupils. The LEA would have a similar duty in respect of nursery schools.
The amendments deal with the broad strategic considerations and with day-to-day issues that affect schools. Thus the authorities' reviews of the arrangements that they would make would be informed by the views of the funding agency and the schools in the area. At the same time, all schools would discuss with each other and with the appropriate authorities the steps that they would take to meet pupils' special educational needs. In each case, the explicit aim is to promote the fullest possible consultation and co-ordination.
Alongside those arrangements, clauses 6 and 18 already require the funding agency and the LEA to provide each other with reports, returns and information. That matter was dealt with at great length in Committee. Hon. Members will recall that we amended clause 18 to require that in making regulations under that clause the Secretary of State must ensure proper provision for information about the education of children with special educational needs.
Clause 146 ensures that the governing bodies of self-governing schools must provide LEAs with whatever relevant information they require in relation to the school or registered pupils at that school. Additionally, our amendments would require the parties to consult each other for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision. Therefore, the planning system w ill ensure proper and sensible coverage of special educational needs in an area between those responsible for making that provision. It will also allow grant-maintained schools the


freedom to participate in considering that provision without intruding on their autonomy, which is their essential characteristic.
I stress that this House and the other place agreed to the Bill's provisions for the overall planning and management of autonomous and self-governing grant-maintained schools. It does pupils with special educational needs no service at all to try to make the arrangements for them separate from the arrangements for those who require mainstream schooling.
Our amendments give the added reassurance that has been sought in another place and by my hon. Friends about the Bill's system for special education needs while maintaining a school's proper autonomy within the management and funding structure for schools generally. I ask the House to agree to the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend and to disagree with the Lords amendments.

Mr. Win Griffiths: This part of the Bill proved the most fruitful in Committee in terms of getting the Government to make some significant changes in their approach. Part of that was due to the help of the Special Educational Consortium, which pointed out the Government's errors in dealing with special educational needs. All hon. Members were helped by the consortium.
Because he wanted to accentuate the positive, the Minister spoke about some of the welcome concessions that were made in Committee. Despite those concessions, the organisations and the hundreds of people who presented material for the debates to the Special Educational Consortium are still concerned about the gaps in the Bill on special educational needs.
We have just an hour and a half to debate 95 amendments in five groups. Even if we exclude the group containing what are described as technical amendments, there is still a great deal of ground to cover. In the group being considered, there are 11 amendments and 10 of them contain important issues of principle about the way in which special educational needs are delivered. We are debating not only the roughly 2 per cent. of children whose needs are considered so great that they require statements but, the 18 per cent. of children who will need special individual help. That is a considerable part of the school population.
Amendment No. 178 requires governors in grant-maintained schools to provide information in their annual reports on special educational needs. Amendment No. 188 places a duty on local education authorities to plan and to review their provision, and amendment No. 189 makes it clear that they must examine not just what they need to provide, because in some ways that is a narrow definition and we should like to broaden it.
8.15 pm
Amendment No. 190 seeks to make sure that schools carry out audits to show whether their schools are accessible to children with special needs. Amendment No. 191 is an omnibus new clause that would give the LEA an important planning role, especially in terms of special educational needs. Amendment No. 192 focuses on the provision of nursery education for children with special needs and amendment No. 193 introduces an important power for an annual review of the needs of non-statemented children.
Amendment No. 196 places a duty on LEAs to ensure that special educational needs, goods and services are available to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. Amendment No. 199 examines the relationship between LEAs and grant-maintained special schools, and amendment No. 209 lays down a duty to direct governing bodies to make provision for special educational needs of children who do not have statemented provision. That means that the LEA can check on that in grant-maintained schools. Amendment No. 220 is technical.
Those are important, fundamental amendments and many of them are supported by the Special Educational Consortium. Its concern is that the special needs of all children and not just the 2 per cent. who require statements should be attended to. It also wants to see special education provision within a sound planning framework. By an amendment in Committee, the Government ensured that all schools will publish their policy on special educational needs. In Committee here, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools and in another place Baroness Blatch made commitments about a code of practice which, if adhered to, will be helpful. The terms of that code are improvements on the Bill's original terms. However, by themselves such improvements are insufficient.
Circular 7/91 currently governs, and provides guidance on, what steps need to be taken to meet special educational needs. As that circular is a few years old and was introduced at a time when there were few grant-maintained schools, it is valid to argue that it covered all children who needed special educational provision.
In Committee, we tried to persuade the Government to accept amendments similar to the Lords amendments, but unfortunately they were rejected. However, in the other place the Government made what is now obviously a tactical retreat, which has no real meaning. They accepted most of the amendments without a vote, but now they want this House to reject them and instead accept their weaker alternatives.
Clause 151 provides only that a local education authority should review its arrangements for special educational provision. That will take in children with statements and other children who have special educational needs, but are not statemented, in local authority schools. Although nationally that is a small minority, in some local education authorities there are a number of such schools, especially at the secondary level. So the local education authority will have virtually no role.
It is important to ensure that within each local authority area there is an overall strategy to meet special educational needs. It is a question of partnership between the LEA and the schools in its area. That does not affect the autonomy of grant-maintained schools, which is what the Minister appeared to fear in his remarks. The GM schools would have a positive role to play in contributing to the development of policy and to any review. The strategy would avoid the duplication of services and effort.
Amendment No. 191 is, in fact, a new clause, under which the strategic plan would include looking at the provision in GM schools; the direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education in the area; the type and size of schools; and the catchment area of schools. In many ways, all those factors would turn the LEA into an enabling authority, set in a framework in


which the schools, maintained or grant-maintained, would provide the service. There would be consultation with the funding agency, where it had a role.
The approach embodied in the amendments would create a new partnership that would truly set the scene for the rest of the century and the first decade and beyond of the next century, something about which the Government are fond of talking. I remind them that they accepted the amendments in another place. It is the one part of the Bill where the amendments, if accepted, would play an important part in creating a clear and stable framework in which the LEA, the funding agency, the Funding Council for Wales—if it is ever created—and both maintained and grant-maintained schools would all have a role.
Of course, under the proposed new clause the final word would still lie with the Secretary of State. Nothing could be done that he felt was unacceptable. The new clause also provides for very wide consultations with anybody who has the remotest interest in education in his local authority area. Therefore, given the aim behind it, we cannot understand why the Government want to reject it and substitute amendments (a) and (b), which are weaker.
Amendment No. 190 raises a specific issue that lies outside the general thrust of the amendments that aim to provide a coherent planning framework. It deals with access arrangements and would ensure that there was a regular review of them. That is an urgent requirement. The National Union of Teachers and the Spastics Society have commissioned one of the Government's favourite firms, Coopers and Lybrand—on which they relied so much for the development of their LMS provisions—to carry out an access review, which eventually saw the light of day in a report entitled "Within Reach". It highlighted the fact that there is a paucity of information, in both local authorities and the DFE, about school buildings. Local authorities tended to have on file only the original plans of a school. The DFE had little idea of the size of schools, the number of floors or the age profiles of pupils. The same applies to the Welsh Office.
The survey shows that 16 per cent. of primary schools and 17 per cent. of secondary schools felt that they were wholly inaccessible to children with special educational needs, while 46 per cent. of primary schools and 18 per cent. of secondary schools said that three quarters of their space was inaccessible. In the secondary sectors there were, and still are, some glaring access problems, with 41 per cent. of libraries and 30 per cent. of science, art and music rooms being inaccessible. Some 55 per cent. of secondary schools and 65 per cent. of primary schools do not have suitable toilets for children with special educational needs.
There is no doubt that if the duty in the amendment were included in the Bill, it would ensure a regular review. It would enable the Funding Agency for Schools—and the funding council, if it were to be created in Wales—and local education authorities to determine their capital grant allocations. They would be able to see where their priorities lay. It is important that the amendment be sustained because although they try to cover the general planning issues, Government amendments (a) and (b) do not cover the specifics.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place. He makes an important point in saying that there must be proper access for disabled children and

others, but one cannot go the whole distance with him. People will assume that he believes that there should be 100 per cent. access in all schools, which is unachievable.

Mr. Griffiths: In fact, that is what I did not say, although I might like it to be true. I am not arguing that case, nor does the amendment. The amendment states only that local education authorities should review the accessibility of schools and that the schools themselves should consider their accessibility. If they have the money and deem it appropriate to do so, they should take steps to carry out the necessary changes. It is not only a case of spending money on, for example, fitting ramps or lifts; it is a case of raising the awareness of schools and their governing bodies of how to make their schools more accessible.
Accessibility can often be achieved by constructing the timetable in a way that is more sympathetic to children with special educational needs and who have access problems. Let us not run away with the idea that the amendment aims to ensure that every school has 100 per cent. access in a relatively short time. We may reach that point one day, but for the moment the amendment would ensure that reviews of accessibility are carried out.
Amendment No. 192 deals with the broad provision of nursery education for children with special educational needs. Local education authorities already have a duty to provide nursery education for children over two with such needs. Some local authorities are already examining the broad provision, but there should be a duty on local authorities to carry out that task. It would be of great value in reducing special educational costs later in a pupil's career because the sooner a pupil's special problems are tackled, the better. Amendment No. 192 neatly deals with a problem which is not specifically mentioned in the Government's amendments, other than briefly in paragraph (b) of amendment (b).
Lords amendment No. 196 would give local education authorities the power to ensure that there is a full range of special educational provision available on which grant-maintained schools can draw. The Government have already accepted an amendment allowing local education authorities to sell special educational goods and services to grant-maintained schools, and we are grateful for that.
The amendment underlines that provision, but would give local authorities an additional duty which is to ensure that a full range of services is available on which grant-maintained schools can draw to meet their special educational needs. It will not necessarily mean that they will be goods and services that the local education authority will provide, but there will be a duty to ensure that a full range of services is available—what could be called a safety net. Although the Government have tabled their own amendment, we hope that they may, even at this late stage, have a change of heart and accept the Lords amendment.
The Special Educational Consortium already has evidence that schools are buying cheaper services and that unqualified adults are being used to help to mind children with special educational needs. I hope that it will provide the Department for Education with chapter and verse on those important points. A survey of 40 local education authorities, which was published only last week, revealed that 40 per cent. of them were already cutting spending on


teachers employed to aid children with learning difficulties, and that services such as remedial reading, the educational psychology service and support for children with behavioural difficulties were all threatened and being cut.
The Minister may say that, under the statementing provisions, that should not be possible, because statements mean that needs must be provided for. Staff must be available to meet those needs, either by making the statement or by ensuring that it is adhered to. Many children, however, do not qualify for statements but still have special needs. Clearly, they are suffering because of the existing pressures on the system.
The Lords amendments are to be preferred to the Government's amendments which are weak because they set a limitation which could be the subject of endless litigation. With reference to the co-ordination of services, the same phase appears in Government amendments (a) and (b), both of which mention the extent to which
it appears necessary or desirable for the purpose of co-ordinating provision for children with special educational needs".
We believe that it is desirable to provide the co-ordinating role, with no qualification; there should be a duty in the Bill to do so. We hope that the Government will go a little further along the path that they are already travelling and give all children with special educational needs the high quality service that they should have.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The House has benefited from the erudite and intellectually stimulating speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools and, equally, from the vigorous and challenging speech by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—which, I understand from my hon. Friends who served with him on the Committee, he has made before.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I urge the Government to adopt a much more generous attitude to the provision of nursery schooling. Like some colleagues in another place, I believe that there are few things that the Government can do which will have a greater effect on a child's attitude to schooling and which will influence the effect of that schooling on the rest of his life than the funding of nursery schooling. In that regard, I realise that I am not completely in accord with my hon. Friend the Minister. However, in my heart of hearts, I hope that the Government will reconsider this issue.
Amendment No. 191 returns the responsibility for the strategic planning of education to locally elected education authorities. Like the hon. Member for Bridgend, I believe that that would help to plot the future for LEAs as enablers rather than providers. At this late stage, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his decision to disagree with amendment No. 191 and to substitute something which, at the best is more bland, and at the worst, undercuts the principle of the amendment.
My second point is about amendment No. 192, which relates specifically to the provision of nursery services for children between the ages of three and five who have special educational needs. It is not limited to children with statements. The amendment is designed to ensure that, within three years of the Bill becoming an Act, the Secretary of State will review the provision arid the desirability of extending nursery provision to all three and five-year-olds and the parents of those children.
Most LEAs prioritise nursery places to children with special educational needs. Therefore, for most LEAs, the new duty would involve no increase in provision. It would

make explicit what LEAs are already providing. The few LEAs which do not follow that course would be directed to provide such provision. Even at this late stage, I urge my hon. Friend even after his excellent explanation of the Government's intentions with regard to the Bill, to reconsider that particular point.

Mr. Pope: Having served on the Standing Committee which examined the Bill, I am grateful for this opportunity to make a final brief contribution to the debate. When I spoke on Second Reading last November, I said that the most vulnerable children at school are not the 2 per cent. of children who have statements, but those in the wider group of 18 per cent. of children who have special needs and do not have statements. I expressed concern that the Bill as it was then worded did not protect the needs of those children.
It should come as no surprise to those of us who served on the Committee that, more than eight months after Second Reading, the Government are trying to remove from the Bill amendments Nos. 188 and 189 which seek to protect the children whom I have described. The Minister said that the Government believe that amendments Nos. 188 and 189 impinge on the autonomy of GM schools. However, the people who are running GM schools, the teachers, head teachers, governors and parents, recognise the need for a wider strategic function across the LEA area, especially with regard to children whose special educational needs fall outside the particular expertise of a particular school.
With regard to amendment No. 191. I am all too well aware that including "local education authority" and "plan" in the same sentence is ideological anathema to the Minister. Mentioning LEA in an amendment is bad enough, as we learnt to our cost in Committee. However, to mention planning as well is calculated to cause outrage on the Government Benches.
The Government have not made clear to the House or to the Committee how the relationship between LEAs and the new Funding Agency for Schools will operate. Members of the Committee will recall the rather unconvincing performances of the Minister as he tried to explain how that relationship would work. The Minister began by saying that the functions would be shared. He then said that the funding agency and LEAs would work in parallel. As parallel lines do not meet, that does not seem to be a very sensible way to provide for and plan our children's education.
8.45 pm
At least amendment No. 191 outlines a mechanism under which LEAs and the funding agency could work well together. Without amendment No. 191, the FAS and the Secretary of State would be working in the dark. That is not unusual for the Secretary of State, but I do not see why we should force that on the FAS.
Local education authorities have been a success because the role that was carved out for them by the Education Act 1944 was one of partners with schools. The 1944 Act lasted so long because it commanded consensus. The Government's opposition to amendment No. 191 shows that they are not interested in creating consensus. If they were interested in doing that, this Bill would not be the 18th or 19th piece of legislation to come before the House since 1979. The Government are much more committed to ideology and to seeing LEAs withering on the vine. If the


Government want the Bill to work and to avoid the ideology-driven fiasco that we saw over testing. they should, even at this late stage, reconsider and accept amendment No. 191.
The thrust of amendment No. 192 refers to children with special needs who do not have statements. Under the Education Act 1981, there is already a duty on LEAs to provide appropriate education for pre-school children who have a statement of special needs. Most LEAs—and certainly most Labour-run LEAs—prioritise nursery places for children with special needs who do not have statements.
The crucial point relates to the remaining LEAs which do not provide such nursery places. Amendment No. 192 would force those LEAs to prioritise nursery places to ensure that they are available first to children with special needs who do not require the protection of a statement. There is a great deal of evidence that that would bring wider acknowledged benefits to many children with special needs and provide them with the benefit of nursery education which they would not otherwise receive if the amendment is disagreed to. Amendment No. 192 is a common-sense amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it, at least in principle.

Sir John Hannam: I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Special Educational Consortium and Paul Ennals, who has kept us so well informed of the needs of children with special educational problems. I fully support the Bill's aim of giving all children the educational opportunities that they deserve and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on all that he has done to try to meet the needs of a very important group of children—those with special educational needs. We are taking big steps forward in part III and my concern is to ensure that we do not leave any gaps in local provision through which various handicapped groups might fall.
The Lords amendments would strengthen various aspects of provision, for example, for the under-fives and those attending different types of schools. I accept that the amendments might not be exactly right. However, I have been reassured by statements made by the Minister of State in the other place, Baroness Blatch, particularly when she underlined parental choice for special schools. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall my amendments on Report and our discussions at meetings in the Department. I thank him for the steps that have been taken to reassure our excellent special schools that, because of their independent or trust status, they will not be obscured from parental choice.
However, I am concerned about two problems. One has been mainly resolved by Government amendments (a) and (b), which move us some way towards addressing a problem that we identified earlier—the need for a coherent framework for planning and co-ordination of special needs provision throughout a local authority area.
The fear has been widespread that, in pursuing academic excellence, grant-maintained schools would do their best, overtly or covertly, to keep out some children who need more of their attention. Several organisations have made representations to us about that matter and some evidence of that has already been identified by one or two representative organisations. Unless there is a collaborative overview of local provision, such gaps could develop still further.
I welcome most warmly the Government amendments: first, requiring a local education authority, when reviewing its own provision for children with special educational needs, to consult other bodies in the area; and, secondly, requiring governing bodies to consult LEAs and other bodies in carrying out their duties towards children with special educational needs. However, it would help if my hon. Friend the Minister spelt out one or two practical implications of the amendments.
For instance, will there be guidance outlining the decisions that a governing body would be required to consult on? One example is of a grant-maintained school which, for some reason, is gradually running down its specialist facility for children with special educational needs in order to improve its examination results, and in so doing would not be proposing a change of character of the school and therefore would not have to publish its proposals. Would the guidance ensure that such an intention would require consultation? If such a proposal was discussed with the funding authority or the local education authority and was objected to, what would happen? Would it go to the Secretary of State for his decision, or would the governing body still be able to carry out its original proposal?
Under the Office of Standards in Education four-yearly school inspection programme, will it also be required to consider the degree to which the special educational needs policy is being undertaken in accord with the local authority's review? It would be extremely helpful if Ofsted could be asked to consider the appropriateness of the governing body's policy in the light of any comments already made by the local education authority or other consulted bodies. If I could have reassurance on the working of my hon. Friend's helpful compromise proposals, I would be very happy to support them.
A rather more disquieting Government amendment is No. 203, on the duty of the district health authority or the local authority to help the local education authority. We are again considering collaboration between statutory agencies. Many concerns have been expressed about the problem of bringing together statutory agencies in order to carry out Government policies. The problem has been expressed many times by hon. Members.
The Children Act 1989 recognised the importance of that matter, with the requirement that local education authorities, district health authorities and other relevant bodies should co-operate with a social services department when a need is identified. In the legislation. there was a perfectly respectable and reasonable let-out clause for circumstances in which the local education authority did not consider that the help that was requested of it was necessary or that offering such help was incompatible with its other duties. We might have expected such a let-out clause in this legislation. It was anticipated that there would be something similar in the Bill.
Hon. Members have often discussed problems of families who are desperate for speech therapy and other services. Unseemly quarrels have developed between various authorities that are unable to agree exactly where responsibility lies. The Bill provides the opportunity to clear up such confusion. Amendment No. 203 allows a new, unprecedented let-out. Under subsection (3) (a), even when the need for help has been established—for example, for speech therapy, which is essential for hearing-impaired children—the district health authority can still claim lack


of resources as an excuse for non-provision. The subsection allows the district health authority to determine whether it is reasonable for it to comply, unlike elsewhere in the Bill, and certainly in subsection (3) (b), where the local authority is not given the same excuse of lack of resources.
I must therefore ask my hon. Friend why the national health service executive, on behalf of the district health authorities, has been able to negotiate a much more comprehensive let-out clause in this Bill than other local authorities have. I refer in particular to housing and social services. I also ask my hon. Friend to consider leaving out subsection (3) (a) and putting district health authorities on the same footing as local authorities, or, alternatively, spelling out exactly when it might be reasonable for a district health authority to plead lack of resources. We need that transparency in the Bill. I hope that the Government can accept the thrust of those concerns. On all other points I warmly support what is being done for children with special educational needs.

Mr. Spearing: In the second half of his speech, the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) identified the loophole which should not exist. His remarks will receive widespread support. However, in the first part of his speech he referred to amendment No. 209 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. The hon. Gentleman spoke of consultation, instead of their Lordships' suggestion that a duty be laid upon the local education authority and on the Secretary of State.
Although the hon. Gentleman wants reassurance on consultation, there is surely nothing in statute better than a duty that is securely identified. As I understand it, no such duty is laid upon any body or person to secure the coherent development and oversight of all education in a local education authority. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but it seems that earlier Bills and this one withdraw the authority that was laid on individuals or bodies in the 1944 Act to achieve a purpose that the whole nation and all hon. Members wish to see. That is one of the main flaws in the Bill.
When I first spoke in the House from the Labour Benches, in the mornings I was winding up my duties to about 500 young people between the ages of 12 and 18 who were my responsibility, not as a head but as a housemaster in a large secondary school. Many of those young people were unhappy. I spoke about unhappy young people and our duty to them.
The commonplace in the staff room was that it was possible for young people who were unhappy at home to cope, provided that they were happy and making progress at school. It was possible for young people who were not making progress and who were unhappy at school to make progress if they were happy at home. However, if they were unhappy in both places, there was a poor outlook. That was more than 20 years ago.
Today, I fear that there is a higher proportion of unhappy young people in that age group. The problems that all of us face in our constituencies at least will not be lessened by that fact and the platform that they have in future for learning to become responsible and happy adults and parents will thereby be diminished.
9 pm
My hon. Friends—others wish to speak, so I shall be brief—have spoken of special needs. All children in schools have special needs. However, the distinction is that some pupils have more special needs than others. Pupils are not categorised. Their needs are a continuum. We all know that pupils have different needs.
The problem is that figures such as 2 per cent. and up to 20 per cent. of pupils who have needs that are not statemented covers the fact that, in any learning group in any school, there may be up to a third or more pupils who are not making progress, especially at the secondary stage where, obviously, there are alternative attractions.
I suggest that the Government's refusal to take special needs as defined by statute seriously enough to accept the Lords amendments is a backward step. They will be either contributing to more unhappy pupils or not relieving the unhappiness that already exists.
There is an equally important provision in amendment No. 191 relating to the overall planning of education in any one area. The amendment states:
(2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Parliament … shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.
(3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify.
How can one plan for the effective education of all pupils in an area—that is what parents want—without some coherent forward planning based on birth rate, the rising fives, form entry and the geographical location of different schools so that at least teachers and those responsible for that education know what is coming? If there is any uncertainty in any learning environment, the quality of learning is likely to be diminished. Many of the provisions in this Bill will programme uncertainty.
One thing that could help is acceptance of the fundamental responsibility for coherent planning for the total educational resources of the area. That is what parents want. As a result of not supplying that planning and not accepting the amendment, and by breaking up some of the fundamentals of the 1944 Act, the Government are doing a disservice not only to the pupils
of today but to those of tomorrow and the population as
a whole.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am fully aware of the time, so I intend to be brief. The Government have taken the correct approach. I am relieved that my right hon. and hon. Friends have objected to this group of amendments. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, this builds on the 1944 Act—it does not destroy it.
I am especially concerned about amendments Nos. 188 and 199. It is wrong to say that the insertion or deletion of a couple of words would not make a difference to clause 151. It would move the provision from a review to direct involvement and, especially in my local area of Waltham Forest, interference. I shall dwell on that in a moment. The Government have clearly identified the power to interfere and, by objecting to the amendments, tackled it.
In that context, amendment No. 199 provides for the insertion of a new clause after clause 156. That new clause would make this part of the Bill unbalanced. The wording


would make the Bill far too wide and place far too heavy a burden on the schools. I am glad that the Government have spotted that and tabled their own amendments.
The two amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled will do the job that is required. That is essentially what Conservative Members should welcome. The amendments give a far better definition and get rid of the anxiety that I and others in the educational establishment who are involved with special needs children have about the ability of local authorities to interfere in what they believe might be their responsibilities if and when schools opt for grant-maintained status.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall not give way, because I am conscious of the time and I believe that others wish to speak.
I wish to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister a problem that is not tackled specifically or well by this section of the Bill. I wish to highlight the matter and ask the Department to examine it. Since the 1988 Act, the processes for becoming grant-maintained have become well understood by schools and local authorities. Whether the proposal to opt out is opposed or the school takes up the option, people understand how to go through the process.
The process which leads into the run-up to opting for grant-maintained status is the setting of a formula for local management of schools. Schools may at some point express an interest in moving towards grant-maintained status. Whitefield school in my area has expressed such a desire. My hon. Friend the Minister has visited it. Such schools are at the mercy of an ill-disposed local education authority which wishes to oppose opting out early on, even before the LMS stage. I wish to highlight that problem.
Recently, my local education authority decided that its special education budget was overspent and demanded that cuts of some 2·5 per cent. be made by special schools in the borough. Without becoming too political, one accepts that such decisions have to be made, whatever the complexion of the local authority.
Whitefield school, which my hon. Friend knows, is a national institution, which provides an excellent set of standards, as well as teacher training to degree level. The local authority, understanding that the school has a desire or intention to consider grant-maintained status, has skewed the requirement to make cuts so that Whitefield will bear the brunt of the cuts. It will have to make cuts of some 4 per cent. rather than 2·5 per cent., as was originally mooted in discussions.
I am worried that the school has already begun to wind back certain areas of provision. Such cuts will drag away provision in certain teaching departments. As my hon. Friend knows, the loss of staff will be a savage blow to such a centre of excellence as Whitefield. I use the case to demonstrate to my hon. Friend how an LEA can use the scope it already has. I am glad that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not allowed that scope to be increased by the Lords amendments, but there is still much scope for such practices to continue.
In conclusion, I request that my hon. Friend take note of the problem, and that the Department pay particular

attention to local education authorities which are ill disposed to the process of opting out and to schools which have expressed an interest in becoming grant-maintained, although not necessarily a commitment to it. The Department should watch them carefully to see that they do not step over the line by imposing requirements, interfering and making cuts on a scale which is unfair to such schools.
Given the complexity of some of the arrangements for special needs schools to become grant-maintained, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take into consideration the possibility of steering a flagship school through the procedures, linking them carefully with the Department, once it has applied, so that we can test the requirements as the school goes through the process, and the school gets it right from stage to stage. Others who wish to follow might well learn from the experience. That experience would be publicised and could perhaps be put on a fast track. We could then understand more clearly where the difficulties lie.
I strongly support allowing special needs schools to go grant-maintained if they so choose, but we do not have the scope to make mistakes and alterations as we go along, as we have done since the 1988 Act. I urge my hon. Friend to take note of that and seek, in the course of practice rather than legislation, to see whether it would be possible.

Mr. Miller: When I returned from a civic service yesterday, I saw the Prime Minister on television. I was expecting to see something on "Jurassic Park". but unfortunately found myself watching something pre-Cambrian. However, in his considered words, he said that he wanted to work with teachers, and the whole House will welcome that statement.
In accordance with the Prime Minister's statement, the Minister might like to consider the National Union of Teachers' brief on amendments Nos. 191 and 192, which makes the same point as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) did in his considered contribution.
If the Government want to take the words of neither the hon. Member for Lewes nor the National Union of Teachers, they may consider a letter that I received this week from the Cheshire dyslexia association, which is worried about what may happen to learning support services in the Cheshire area as a result of the Bill. It urges support for amendments Nos. 191 and 192, and says:
The first amendment aims to ensure that the LEA have a planning responsibility for provision for SEN children. The teaching of dyslexic children requires particular skills and understanding and Cheshire has recognised this by providing a training course for its teachers under the initiative of the Head of its Learning Support Service".
The letter then illustrates how the approach that has been adopted by the other place helps SEN children. It says:
Without such a planning agency we feel that the services may collapse and dyslexic children would no longer receive appropriate teaching.
The letter goes on:
The second amendment aims to ensure that nursery education is available for all children aged 3–5 years with special educational needs. The social, moral and economic arguments for early intervention for children with learning difficulties are very strong. This provision would be targeted at those most in need"—
and argues the moral case for such a provision.
Those are powerful words by a charitable foundation in the Cheshire area, which is doing an extremely good job for the people whom it seeks to represent. If the Minister


is not prepared to accept the word of the Opposition, professional teachers or the hon. Member for Lewes, I hope that he will take those words into account.
The Government amendments will not make the necessary provision. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) invited the Minister to spell out precisely what he meant, but the Lords amendment sought to do that in a constructive way. If the Minister accepted it, he would not have to spell out what he meant, because it would be built into statute, which would he a much better way to deal with the problem.
As my wife works part-time with special educational needs children, I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest, but I certainly have an interest in the matter.
I hope that the House, and indeed the country, will listen carefully to the points that have been raised in this part of the debate. The Minister will be aware that there are great arguments in my area about whether the Government are providing proper funding for education. An all-party delegation met Government officials recently to talk about standard spending assessment expenditure, and that debate will go on; but however long that debate goes on, we should not be distracted from making sure that the proper provision is made to those who are most disadvantaged.
I shall explain why I think that the strategic plan envisaged in the Lords amendment is necessary by referring to three cases—clearly, not by name—of children whose parents reside in an army camp within my constituency. The changing domestic circumstances of, and the pressures on, armed forces personnel make that a difficult subject, and the lack of strategic planning creates a disadvantage for those people.
9.15 pm
If one finds such a simple illustration in one constituency, I am sure that it can be multiplied many times over in other constituencies. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, also represent an area with military personnel in the population, and I am sure that the argument can be found all over the country.
The hon Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that the debate was not about statemented children—it is about all children who have special needs. It is a subject in which strategy and partnership are necessary to overcome the problems that are faced by children in rural areas and children whose domestic circumstances are difficult to handle, such as those in military areas.
The Minister must spell out his views, and I urge him in the few minutes available to think carefully about the issues raised by the noble Lords. They have hit the nail on the head on this subject, and I urge the Minister to accept amendments No. 191 and No. 192.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I wish to respond briefly to the debate. I must remind the Government that the amendments were accepted in the Lords, and they must know that virtually everyone concerned with the provision of special educational needs backs the amendments.
The Government have produced amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 178, 188, 193, 196, 199 and 209, and have also produced their own amendment. But it remains an extremely weak alternative, and the original reaction of Baroness Blatch to accept the amendments was right. Concerns have been expressed by

hon. Members of all parties about what might happen if the Bill is passed with amendments (a) and (b) and the rest of the clauses.
Fears have been expressed to hon. Members by a wide range of people involved in provision for special educational needs. The fear is that there is a need to have a planning duty and to have regard to special educational needs and nursery education to make sure that the best provision exists. Perhaps just as important is the fact that the amendment relating to the review of access to schools has been omitted from the Government's amendment in lieu, and that the proposal is not covered in a precise way anywhere else. Although it may become the subject of the developments outlined in the Government's amendment in lieu, there is no guarantee that the issue will be looked at specifically.
When we debated in Committee questions relating to research, the Government accepted—in clause 18(3)—the need for specific account to be taken of special educational needs. We believe that within special educational needs there is a case for taking account of the access issue. Although we have been constrained this evening by the Government's timetable motion and have not had a chance to debate even this group of amendments fully, we hope that they will reverse their decision to disagree with the amendments. We certainly propose to exercise our right to vote on what we consider to be most important issues.

Mr. Forth: First, I take issue—if that is not too strong a phrase—with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who said with a flourish, "All pupils have special needs; all pupils have different needs." I made a careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said, and no doubt he meant it in his own terms. He puts an interesting gloss on the subject. I must in all fairness refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 148, which says:
for the purposes of the Education Acts, a child has 'special educational needs' if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to he made for him.
We are not talking about the individual needs of children in the classroom in mainstream education, which I would never dispute. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knew that, but I thought I had better put that straight in case he was just being mischievous.

Mr. Spearing: I think that I agree with the spirit of the Minister's reply. I was merely pointing out that all pupils who are not making progress and are therefore unhappy and are therefore not learning have special needs, although they may not be statemented as such.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
It has been alleged that the Government accepted the amendments in the other place only to oppose them thereafter. The first amendment in the group was agreed to against the will of the Government. I need not remind Opposition Members of that, as it was one of their greatest moments during our proceedings on the Bill. In line with convention, the Government then chose not to oppose the remainder of the amendments—not least to give us a chance to study their implications and to decide what we wanted to do about them.
The hon. Member for Bridgend rather seductively tried to convince the House that, where there is a partnership between local education authorities and grant-maintained


schools—as he claimed is specified in the amendments with which I have asked the House to disagree—it need not affect the autonomy of grant-maintained schools. That was also the thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone).
I must remind the House of the text of the amendment. It refers first to a local education authority submitting for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 151 and of the progressive development of educational provision—which means general educational provision, I assume—"including special needs." The amendment goes on:
A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan"—
the House will note the reference to the LEA implementing the terms of the plan—
and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals".
The proposed subsection (6) says:
A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters … the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned: the number and size of comprehensive or, as the case may be, selective schools in the area: the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools".
That is why the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade me that that need not affect GM school autonomy. The words of the amendment from another place say precisely the opposite.

Mr. Griffiths: I pointed out that this was a partnership, and that there were two reasons why that view could be justified. First, to reach an agreed plan, there would be wide consultation, so it would be necessary for all the schools involved to agree to the plan. Secondly, it would require the approval of the Secretary of State for Education of the day. Given those two criteria, which are also in the amendment—as is nursery education, which the Minister did not mention—there is every reason to believe that a successful partnership can be developed which will not affect the autonomy of any school.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman misses the whole point. Given the words that I have just quoted, it runs directly counter to the whole thrust and philosophy of GM schools. In allowing parents a chance to ballot on whether their school becomes grant maintained, we are offering them a chance to get out from under the local education authority. The amendments would run counter to that and would undermine, as they were intended to do, the whole purpose and thrust of grant-maintained status.

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: No, I will not give way. I want to try to answer as many points that have been raised as I can.
The hon. Member for Bridgend went on to ask about amendment No. 190. I should remind the House that there are provisions on the face of the Bill that make that amendment unnecessary. Clause 18, for example, empowers the Secretary of State to require information relating to primary or secondary education as necessary from both the funding authority—if a section 10 order applies to the area—and local education authorities. Clause 18(3), from which the hon. Gentleman quoted a moment ago, specifically mentions special educational

provision in relation to those powers. It is probably self-evident that amendment No. 190 would be superfluous if the Secretary of State used the powers outlined in clause 18, as I fully envisage he would.
We are strongly committed to encouraging the growing grant-maintained sector to apply for capital grants to improve access for the disabled. We will shortly be inviting all self-governing schools to consider the needs for that purpose. Projects to allow disabled pupils access to self-governing schools will be given the highest priority. I made that point in Committee, but I am happy to reiterate it.

Mr. Griffiths: How many of the 400 GM schools that currently exist have made capital requests to improve facilities for disabled pupils?

Mr. Forth: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information offhand, but I will be only too happy to do so. In the continuing round of bidding, we expect priority to be given to disabled facilities, as I have just said, and we will look extremely sympathetically at all bids made under that aegis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked me if we should give special treatment—he used the term "assistance", then the term "fast track"—for a special school that wanted GM status. In fairness, I do not think that we can single out particular schools for that sort of special treatment. My Department. however, will always give the maximum help, assistance and co-operation to any school that wants to know what its rights are, and how to exercise those rights and use the procedures available.
I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is duty bound carefully to consider all proposals on their merits and to consider any objections that may be made to them, so I cannot promise the kind of treatment that my hon. Friend had in mind. I suspect, knowing the school that he has in mind, that it will do its homework extremely well and that, were it to make such proposals, it would do so extremely effectively. I cannot say any more than that, and I do not want to prejudice my right hon. Friend's duty under legislation to ensure that things are dealt with as they should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has unparalleled knowledge and expertise in this regard. I am very grateful for the help that he has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister of State and me: indeed, it was in no small part thanks to him that we tabled the alternative amendments welcomed by him, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and others. I am grateful for their comments as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter asked me some specific questions about the mechanisms for consultations. We envisage issuing guidance to the governors of self-governing schools on their duties under the law, including all the duties newly laid down under part III of the Bill, such as the provision about consultation. We shall also revise the—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this clay, put the question already proposed front the Chair, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 252.

Division No. 339]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dover, Den


Aitken, Jonathan
Duncan, Alan


Alexander, Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot. James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine





Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Speed, Sir Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, David
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Milligan, Stephen
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Richards, Rod
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Riddick, Graham



Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flynn, Paul


Adams, Mrs Irene
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ainger, Nick
Fraser, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Allen, Graham
Galloway, George


Alton, David
Garrett, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Gerrard, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godsiff, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Battle, John
Gould, Bryan


Bayley, Hugh
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Benton, Joe
Hain, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Hall. Mike


Betts, Clive
Hanson, David


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boyce, Jimmy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Heppell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
lllsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Coffey. Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Bob
Keen, Alan


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Khabra, Piara S.


Dafis, Cynog
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dowd, Jim
McAllion, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Ian


Eagle, Ms Angela
Macdonald, Calum


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Enright, Derek
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin





McWilliam, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Madden, Max
Rogers, Allan


Mahon, Alice
Rooker, Jeff


Mandelson, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Ruddock, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith. Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morris. Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Paul
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pickthall, Colin
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Pope, Greg
Wareing, Robert N


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wicks. Malcolm


Prescott, John
Williams. Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams. Alan W (Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Raynsford. Nick
Wright, Dr Tony


Redmond, Martin
Young. David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Rendel, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. John Spellar.


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 180, after clause 146, insert the following clause—Inspection of accounts and reports to Parliament—

(".—(1) The accounts of the governing body of any grant-maintained school shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall, in each session of Parliament, report to the House of Commons—
(a) whether he has carried out under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 any examinations in respect
of grant-maintained schools, and if he has,
(b) the results of such examinations.
(3) The first report under subsection (2) above shall cover a period beginning with the commencement of this section and each subsequent report shall cover a period beginning at the end of the period covered by the preceding report.
(4) In determining whether to carry out any examination under that section in respect of grant-maintained schools and. if he determines to do so, the nature of the examination, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have regard to any relevant published report of any study promoted or undertaken by the Audit Commission under section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.")

Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 180, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 181, in line 19, after 'Commission' insert

'for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 180, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry]

("() local education authorities, and such governing bodies, exercising functions under this Part of this Act,
() any other person exercising any function for the purpose of the discharge by local education authorities, and such governing bodies, of functions under this Part of this Act, and
() the Special Educational Needs Tribunal")

Amendments made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 3, at end add 'and'.

(b), in line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Forth.]

Lords amendment No. 185, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 181 and 186 disagreed to.

Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 186
agreed to.

Clause 151

REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 188, in page 91, line 21, after ("shall") insert ("plan and")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 245.

Division No. 340]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Congdon, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowden, Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brandreth, Gyles
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Clause 149

CODE OF PRACTICE

Lords amendment No. 185, in page 90, line 42, leave out from ("of-) to end of line 43 and insert—

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 189, in page 91, line 22, leave out ("by them").

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 240.

Division No. 340]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Congdon, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowden, Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brandreth, Gyles
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dicks, Terry


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James




Dover, Den
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Duncan, Alan
Hunter, Andrew


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jack, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jenkin, Bernard


Eggar, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Elletson, Harold
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Key, Robert


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evennett, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Faber, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Fabricant, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fishburn, Dudley
Knox, Sir David


Forman, Nigel
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Forth, Eric
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Legg, Barry


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Leigh, Edward


French, Douglas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gale, Roger
Lidington, David


Gallie, Phil
Lightbown, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Lilley. Rt Hon Peter


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Garnier, Edward
Lord, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Gillan, Cheryl
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Madel, David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Malone, Gerald


Hague, William
Mans, Keith


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marland, Paul


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marlow, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hannam, Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Harris, David
Mates, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hawkins, Nick
Merchant, Piers


Hawksley, Warren
Milligan, Stephen


Hayes, Jerry
Mills, Iain


Heald, Oliver
Mitchell, Sir David (Hanfs NW)


Hendry, Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Horam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)






Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stephen, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stewart, Allan


Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Paice, James
Sykes, John


Patnick, Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pickles, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thomason, Roy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Richards, Rod
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trotter, Neville


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Tom
Ward, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconstield)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Spink, Dr Robert
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sproat, Iain



Squire. Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Derek Conway.


Steen, Anthony





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Alton, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Bayley. Hugh
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clelland, David


Beggs, Roy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beith. Rt Hon A. J.
Coffey, Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Betts, Clive
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Corston, Ms Jean


Boyce, Jimmy
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cox, Tom


Bray. Dr Jeremy
Cryer, Bob





Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ron


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livingstone. Ken


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McFall, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
McLeish, Henry


Enright, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Mandelson. Peter


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Meacher, Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John
Milburn, Alan


George, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliot


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon. Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould. Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Olner, William


Hanson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pickthall, Colin


Heppell, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pope, Greg


Hinchliffe, David
Powell. Ray (Ogmore)


Hoey. Kate
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Purchase. Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin. Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Giles


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid. Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hutton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


lllsley, Eric
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rogers, Allan


Jackson. Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooker. Jeff


Jamieson, David
Rooney, Terry


Janner. Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheerman, Barry


Jowell, Tessa
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Keen, Alan
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Simpson, Alan


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Skinner, Dennis


Khabra, Piara S.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)






Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Watson, Mike


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Walley, Joan

Division No. 341]
[10.1 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alexander, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Congdon, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Couchman, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cran, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davies, Ouentin (Stamford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bates, Michael
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dicks, Terry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Sir Richard
Dover. Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butcher, John
Forth, Eric


Butler, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Fry, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Gale, Roger


Churchill. Mr
Gallie, Phil





Gardiner, Sir George
Milligan, Stephen


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mills, Iain


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gillan, Cheryl
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawkins, Nick
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, Jerry
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Porter. Barry (Wirral S)


Hendry, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Richards, Rod


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend. Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)






Tracey. Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Trotter, Neville
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Wells, Bowen





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainger, Nick
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H.


Alton, David
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Fisher, Mark


Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Bell. Stuart
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett. John


Benton, Joe
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blunkett, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boateng, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Boyce. Jimmy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Mildred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Burden, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hanson, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Heppell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland. David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes. Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jamieson, David


Dafis, Cynog
Janner, Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Sir Russell


Darling. Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies. Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)





Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jowell, Tessa
Prescott, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S.
Randall, Stuart


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Raynsford, Nick


Leighton, Ron
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel. David


Litherland, Robert
Robinson. Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooker, Jeff


Loyden, Eddie
Rooney, Terry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion. John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Simpson, Alan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Mandelson, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn. Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Tyler, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley. Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winnick, David


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall. Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 190, in page 91, line 22, at end insert
("and the arrangements made for school premises to be made accessible to children requiring special educational provision within the area of the local education authority.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 242.

Division No. 342]
[10.15pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Arnold. Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby. David


Allason. Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess. David
Atkinson. David (Bour'mouth E)






Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bates, Michael
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen. Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman. Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman. James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


Maclean, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Watts. John


Richards, Rod
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Tom
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Sims, Roger





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Beggs, Roy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Betts, Clive


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Austin-Walker, John
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyce, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)






Burden, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Byers, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Khabra, Piara S.


Cousins, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cox, Tom
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Litherland, Robert


Dafis, Cynog
Livingstone, Ken


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Donohoe, Brian H.
Macdonald, Calum


Dowd, Jim
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Enright, Derek
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meacher, Michael


Fraser, John
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galloway, George
Milburn, Alan


Garrett, John
Miller, Andrew


George, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gould, Bryan
Mudie, George


Graham, Thomas
Mullin, Chris


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gunnell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hain, Peter
Olner, William


Hall, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hanson, David
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoey, Kate
Prescott, John


Hogg. Norman (Cumbernauld)
Primarolo, Dawn





Purchase, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stevenson, George


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Randall, Stuart
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Straw, Jack


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Turner, Dennis


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tyler, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Joan
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Spellar, John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 191, after clause 151, insert the following clause—Strategic' plan by local education authority—

(".—(1) A local education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 151 above and of the progressive development of educational provision including special needs within their areas.

(2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.

(3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify.

(4) The Secretary of State may approve any plan submitted to him under this section with such modifications as he considers appropriate having regard to the interests of pupils.

(5) Any proposals contained in any plan submitted under this section shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of children with special educational needs.

(6) A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters—

(a) a broad direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education respectively within the authority concerned, having regard to the requirements of section 152 below;
(b) the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned:
(c) the number and size of comprehensive or, as the case may be, selective schools in the area, taking account of the requirments of section 152 below:
(d) the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools, and City Technology Colleges, together with targets for numbers of entry from their catchment areas;
(e) the range of goods and services to be provided by the authority under sections 154 and (where applicable) 265 below; and
(f) any other matter which the authority may consider appropriate or the Secretary of State may specify.

(7) Any local education authority shall consult any neighbouring local education authority, and such representatives of parents, headteachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations as appear to it to be concerned before submitting any plan under this section.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment. —[Mr.
Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 241.

Division No. 343]
[10.28 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Bates, Michael
Faber, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fabricant, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, Dudley


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedalel


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew





Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Whittingdale, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Don (Bath)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fraser, John


Ainger, Nick
Fyfe, Maria


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Galloway, George


Allen, Graham
Garrett, John


Alton, David
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Gerrard, Neil


Armstrong, Hilary
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Austin-Walker, John
Godsiff, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Barron, Kevin
Gould, Bryan


Battle, John
Graham, Thomas


Bayley, Hugh
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Benton, Joe
Hain, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Hall. Mike


Betts, Clive
Hanson, David


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyce, Jimmy
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hoey, Kate


Burden, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Byers, Stephen
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton. John


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld. H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jowell, Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cousins, Jim
Khabra, Piara S.


Cox, Tom
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lewis, Terry


Dafis, Cynog
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McFall, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
McLeish, Henry


Enright, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marek, Dr John





Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Martlew, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Meacher, Michael
Ruddock, Joan


Meale, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheerman, Barry


Milburn, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Paul
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Olner, William
Tipping, Paddy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L.
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pope, Greg
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike


Primarolo, Dawn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Rendel, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. John Spellar.


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 192—insert the following new clause—Planning of nursery provision for pupils with special needs—

(".—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 165 below, a local education authority shall plan and keep under review, and secure the provision of, nursery education in respect of any child to whom subsection (2) below applies.

(2) A child to whom this section applies is a child who is aged not less than three nor more than five years and who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.

(3) The Secretary of State shall within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act review and publish his conclusions on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of provision under this section (including its impact on the education of pupils with special eduction needs in schools which are not special schools) and the desirability or otherwise of the extension of the duty referred to in subsection (1) above to include the planning and review of, and the securing of the provision of, nursery education in respect of all pupils aged not less than three nor more than five years whose parents wish it.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House deivided: Ayes 296, Noes 239.

Division No. 344]
[10.41 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David






Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garnier, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gillan, Cheryl


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright. Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sydney
Horam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kilfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lidington, David





Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew
Speed, Sir Keith


Maclean, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stephen, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan


Mates, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sackville, Tom



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Derek Conway.


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart


Armstrong, Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Benton, Joe


Austin-Walker, John
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Betts, Clive






Blunkett, David
Heppell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Boyce, Jimmy
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hoey, Kate


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Home Robertson, John


Burden, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Byers, Stephen
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cann, Jamie
Hutton, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Illsley, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jowell, Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cousins, Jim
Khabra, Piara S.


Cox, Tom
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lewis, Terry


Dafis, Cynog
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell. Tarn
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McFall, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Enright, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans. John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Meacher, Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Meale. Alan


Galloway, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John
Milburn, Alan


George, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliot


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hain, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Olner, William


Hanson, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pickthall, Colin





Pike, Peter L.
Spearing, Nigel


Pope, Greg
Spellar, John


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prescott, John
Stevenson, George


Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis


Redmond, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Reid, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Rendel, David
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walley, Joan


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Simpson, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Jack Thompson.


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 153

DUTIES OF GOVERNING BODY ETC. IN RELATION TO PUPILS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Lords amendment: No 193, in page 91, line 46 after ("him") insert—
("() secure that, where a registered pupil with special educational needs is not the subject of a Statement of Special Educational Needs maintained by an education authority, there shall be a review of the provision made for the child within the period of twelve months beginning with the making of the provision, or as the case may be, with the previous review,").

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 240.

Division No. 345]
[10.53 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot. James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, Andrew


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Bates, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Batiste, Spencer
Budgen, Nicholas


Bellingham, Henry
Burns, Simon


Bendall, Vivian
Burt, Alistair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butcher, John






Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothlerry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lightbown, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Madel, David


Fox. Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland. Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Mates, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip





Ottaway, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Irvine
Sykes, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thomason, Roy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Richards, Rod
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Sir Keith
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Stewart, Allan





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene
Callaghan, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell. Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Hilary
Cann, Jamie


Ashton, Joe
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Austin-Walker, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Coffey, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Ms Jean


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Cox, Tom


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, Bob


Boyce, Jimmy
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dalyell, Tarn


Burden, Richard
Darling, Alistair


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)






Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dowd, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McFall, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
McLeish, Henry


Enright, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Galloway, George
Meaie, Alan


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


George, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Miller, Andrew


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morgan, Rhodri


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Graham, Thomas
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Olner, William


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Patchett, Terry


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pike, Peter L.


Hinchliffe, David
Pope, Greg


Hoey, Kate
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg. Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoon, Geoffrey
Purchase, Ken


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes. Simon (Southwark)
Rendel. David


Hutton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Illsley, Eric
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooker, Jeff


Jamieson, David
Rooney, Terry


Janner, Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Jones. Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheerman, Barry


Jowell, Tessa
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Simpson, Alan


Keen, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Khabra, Piara S.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Litherland, Robert
Stevenson, George


Livingstone, Ken
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Straw. Jack





Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Tyler, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wright, Dr Tony


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Warden, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Wicks, Malcolm

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 154

PROVISION OF SEN ASSISTANCE

Lords amendment: No 196, in page 92, line 35, at end insert—

("() The local education authority shall ensure the availability of goods and services to assist governing bodies in their duties under section 153(1)(a) of this Act.")

Motion made, and question put, That this House doth disaggree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 240.

Division No. 346]
[11.5 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cash, William


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison. Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall. Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell. Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley. Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Andrew
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Elletson, Harold


Brandreth, Gyles
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle. John (Luton North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carttiss. Michael
Fox. Dr Liam (Woodspring)






Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Merchant, Piers


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Sir Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter





Sykes, John
Waller, Gary


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Walden, George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dafis, Cynog


Ainger, Nick
Dalyell, Tam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Austin-Walker, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dowd, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bayley, Hugh
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Enright, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blunkett, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyce, Jimmy
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Doug






Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnston, Sir Russell
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ron
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Simpson, Alan


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Straw, Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Watson, Mike


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Eric Illsley.


O'Hara, Edward



Olner, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 199, after clause 156, insert the following clause—Relationship of local education authority and grant-maintained special school—
(".—(1) The funding authority shall consult any local education authority which has in the previous three years named in a statement a school which is or has become a grant-maintained special school.
(2) A grant-maintained special school shall assist the authority in any inspection and review carried out under section (Duty to direct governing body to make special educational provision) below.

(3) The funding authority and governing body of a grant-maintained special school shall consult any local education authority to which subsection (1) above applies on the range and type of provision at the school and of any proposals for a change of character.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 238.

Division No. 347]
[11.17pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Devlin, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Booth, Hartley
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Budgen. Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer. Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chapman. Sydney
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clappison. James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawkins, Nick


Cormack, Patrick
Hawksley, Warren


Couchman, James
Hayes, Jerry


Cran, James
Heald, Oliver


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hendry, Charles


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hicks, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Higgins. Rt Hon Sir Terence L.






Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mates. Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Willetts, David


Pawsey, James
Wilshire, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)





Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Derek Conway.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Adams, Mrs Irene
Flynn, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Allen, Graham
Fraser, John


Alton, David
Fyfe, Maria


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Galloway, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Garrett, John


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Gerrard, Neil


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Gordon, Mildred


Bayley, Hugh
Gould, Bryan


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Graham, Thomas


Beggs, Roy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hain, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hall, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Hanson, David


Boyce, Jimmy
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heppell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook. Robin (Livingston)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Bob
Keen, Alan


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Llwyd, Elfyn


Donohoe, Brian H.
Loyden, Eddie


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Ms Angela
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Macdonald, Calum


Enright, Derek
McFall, John


Etherington, Bill
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry






McMaster, Gordon
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McNamara, Kevin
Rogers, Allan


McWilliam, John
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terry


Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mudie, George
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Turner, Dennis


O'Hara, Edward
Tyler, Paul


Olner, William
Vaz, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Patchett, Terry
Walley, Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L.
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watson, Mike


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Winnick, David


Quin. Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Radice, Giles
Wray, Jimmy


Randall, Stuart
Wright, Dr Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, Martin



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Rendel, David
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lord amendment: No. 209, after clause 162, insert the following clause—Duty to direct Governing Body to make special educational provision—
(". (1) Where it has come to the attention of the local education authority that the governing body of a county, voluntary or grant-maintained school is not fulfilling its duties under section 153 of this Act in respect of a pupil for whom a statement of special educational needs is maintained under section 159 of this Act then the local education authority shall direct that the governing body make the special educational provision specified in the statement.
(2) In order to carry out its duty under this section, the local education authority shall have the power to inspect the special educational provision and require the governing body to supply such reports as the local education authority may require.
(3) After a period of two months after the making of a direction under subsection (1) above, the local education authority shall review the special educational provision made for the pupil for whom the direction was made and, where it appears that the provision has not been made, the local education authority shall review the educational needs of the pupil under section 162 of this Act.
(4) Where, as a consequence of a review under subsection (3) above, a new statement of special educational needs is made under section 159 that names a different school, the Governing Body shall pay to the local education authority the cost of educating that pupil for the remainder of the financial year. the cost of reassessment and such compensation to the parents of the pupil as the local education authority deems reasonable.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 243.

Division No. 348]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (Easf Surrey)
Dicks, Terry


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall. Jack
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman. Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill. Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins. Nick


Congdon, David
Hawksley, Warren


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs. Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heald, Oliver


Coombs. Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope. Rt Hon Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew






Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Tredinnick, David


Milligan, Stephen
Trend, Michael


Mills, Iain
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Sir Roger
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Norris, Steve
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Whittingdale, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Ottaway, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Pickles, Eric
Wood, Timothy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Michael Brown.


Renton, Rt Hon Tim






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Don (Bath)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fraser, John


Ainger, Nick
Fyfe, Maria


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Galloway, George


Allen, Graham
Garrett, John


Alton, David
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Gerrard, Neil


Armstrong, Hilary
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashton, Joe
Godsiff, Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry
Gould, Bryan


Barron, Kevin
Graham, Thomas


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bayley, Hugh
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beggs, Roy
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gunnell, John


Bell, Stuart
Hain, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hall, Mike


Benton, Joe
Hanson, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Betts, Clive
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blunkett, David
Heppell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Boyce, Jimmy
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hoey, Kate


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Home Robertson, John


Burden, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Byers, Stephen
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cann, Jamie
Hutton, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Khabra, Piara S.


Cousins, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cox, Tom
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Strettord)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Donohoe, Brian H.
Macdonald, Calum


Dowd, Jim
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Enright, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)






Martlew, Eric
Pope, Greg


Meacher, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Meale, Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Prescott, John


Milburn, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Miller, Andrew
Purchase, Ken


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Quin, Ms Joyce


Morgan, Rhodri
Radice, Giles


Morley, Elliot
Randall, Stuart


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Raynsford, Nick


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Redmond, Martin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Reid, Dr John


Mowlam, Marjorie
Rendel, David


Mudie, George
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Mullin, Chris
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Murphy, Paul
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Rogers, Allan


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Rooker, Jeff


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Rooney, Terry


O'Hara, Edward
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Olner. William
Rowlands, Ted


Orme. Rt Hon Stanley
Ruddock, Joan


Patchett. Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Sheerman, Barry


Pike. Peter L.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





Short, Clare
Vaz, Keith


Simpson, Alan
Walker. Rt Hon Sir Harold


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Watson, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stevenson, George
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Wright, Dr Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.


Turner, Dennis



Tyler, Paul

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some Special Entry.

Lords amendment: No. 334, after clause 227, insert new clause—Temporary procedure for making certain orders—
(".—(1) Where this section applies in relation to any proposals by the Secretary of State to make an order under section 3(4) or 4(2)(a) or (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (orders relating to foundation subjects, key stages and attainment targets), or regulations under section 17 of that Act (exceptions from National Curriculum)—

(a) the Secretary of State shall make such arrangements for consultation about the proposals as he considers appropriate, and
(b) sections 20 and 21 of that Act (procedure for representations in relation to England and Wales) shall not apply.

(2) Where, at any time after the commencement of this section and before 1st September 1996, the Secretary of State proposes to make such an order or such regulations, this section applies in relation to the proposals unless, at any time before the commencement of this section—

(a) they were referred under section 20(2) of that Act, or
(b) notice of them was given under section 21(2) of that Act.

(3) Where the Secretary of State proposes, at any time on or after 1st September 1996, to make such an order or such regulations, this section applies in relation to the proposals if arrangements under this section for consultation about the proposals were made before that date.")

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 12, leave out
'after the commencement of this section and before 1st September 1996'
and insert
'during the temporary procedure period'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss amendments (a) to (d) to the Lords amendment and the consequential amendment, Lords amendment No. 335, Lords amendment No. 336 and amendment (a), Lords amendments Nos. 337 to 341, No. 384, 479 to 486, 488, 504, 528, 529, 534, 535, 549 and 580.

Mr. Griffiths: We shall obviously have to be brief to give the Government a chance to respond to the debate on the amendment. The amendment is important because in the Bill the Government propose to reduce the period of three years during which statutory consultation is required on changes in the national curriculum. They argue for that reduction on the grounds that the Dearing review, which is non-statutory consultation, will produce a consensus which will make it unnecessary to go through the two-stage process of consultation under sections 20 and 21 of the 1988 Act.
We believe that, however well Sir Ron Dearing carries out the review, there can be no guarantee that his proposals will represent a consensus of the views delivered to him, nor can we guarantee that the Government will accept all that comes out of his review. Therefore, we feel that it is not wise to allow a three-year period in which the level of consultation will be reduced. We support the Lords in their proposal that the fixed period for reduced consultation should be covered by a one-year term to August 1994. That one-year term will be renewable for two further one-year terms by affirmative order. The reduced consultation should be covered by parliamentary scrutiny.
We are also worried because sections 20 and 21 of the 1988 Act mainly cover subject orders. The Dearing review deals with not only subjects in the national curriculum but matters of assessment. Those matters are too important to be left to a reduced consultation period. We accept that

there would be advantages for children and teachers in securing rapid implementation of fairly simple, consensual changes, but it is not right to let that happen in a way that would not be subject to any parliamentary review for a full three years.
Through the Lords amendments, we want to ensure that we have an annual review by affirmative order. We hope that the Government accept that that is not too onerous a burden and that they will be prepared to accept Lords amendment No. 334.

Mr. Robin Squire: It is a bit rich, after what we have experienced in the past two hours-plus, to be advised by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that we need significant time to discuss this group of amendments. An independent observer of our proceedings would conclude that Opposition Members have no arguments on the Bill and are reduced to using their feet instead of their mouths. None the less—before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the intention behind Lords amendment No. 334, which was tabled in another place following my right hon. Friend's statement to the House of 11 May, is to be able to respond quickly and positively to the recommendation of Sir Ron Dearing's review on the broad principles of the national curriculum and assessment to remedy the current unmanageable situation.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bridgend to secure adequate consultation on the new curriculum orders. He also spoke about the importance of putting into effect the proposals that may arise from the review. Their Lordships propose to lift the current requirements for just long enough to complete reviews of individual orders in the light of the full and wide-ranging consultation on broad principles.
Opposition Members wish to ensure that this temporary measure is even shorter than we propose—one year—unless Parliament grants extensions of one year by affirmative resolution. I do not believe that their aims will be compromised by the Lords amendment. I do riot propose to lift the requirements for longer than is strictly necessary, and the Government have already given assurances in another place about the nature of such consultation.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: I should like to continue speaking, as I have waited for some time for this opportunity.
We must, however, be prepared to respond properly and, depending on the scale of Sir Ron's recommendations, that may take more than the year allowed by the Opposition's amendments, particularly as Sir Ron's report will not be completed until the end of this year.
It would be a mistake if a widely recognised need for change, reflected in the work of Sir Ron's review, could not be put in place as quickly as is reasonably possible. At the same time, we must allow for a planned series of changes rather than a "big hang" approach, if that is what schools feel would work best. That might mean issuing proposals for changes to be introduced by, at the latest, the beginning of September 1996, the date set in the amendment. The extension of the proposed consultation arrangements until 1996 will, therefore, allow us to present a coherent package to schools in the light of Sir Ron's review.
I should also give the same assurances to the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State was concerned to give in another place about the nature of consultation. Once the current consultation arrangements are suspended, I assure hon. Members that, wherever possible, although there will he no statutory requirement to do so, we intend to follow the procedures set out in sections 20 and 21 of the Education Reform Act 1988 and to hold both rounds of consultation. Where we need to proceed more quickly, and use the flexibility introduced by the clause to hold only one round of consultations, we would intend to consult at least as widely as is required in the Education Reform Act—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: And Parliament'?

Mr. Squire: I shall come to Parliament in a moment.
We would expect to consult more widely, allowing adequate time for consultation appropriate to the organisations that we consult on any particular proposal.
Furthermore, although I respect the desire of Opposition Members to secure parliamentary scrutiny of any extensions to the suspension beyond 1994, their concerns are misplaced. Any revised orders will still require parliamentary approval before being introduced; we will simply he able to bring them before Parliament earlier than before.
Lords amendment No. 336 concerns consultation. Nobody would wish to suggest that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority should not consult, and those of us who are following Sir Ron Dearing's review will have noted his personal commitment to widespread consultation. But it is for the authority itself to decide how best to consult, and with whom. There is no need to lay down statutory requirements in this regard.
Of the other amendments in the group, amendment No. 335 was tabled by the Government at Third Reading in another place in response to concerns expressed on Report there that the criteria for the appointment of members to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority should he set out more explicitly.
Other amendments concerned with the new authority and with the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales—Nos. 337 to 341, 479 to 486, 487 to 488, 504, 528 to 529, 534, 535. 549 and 580—are technical amendments

tabled by the Government dealing with the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council, the charitable status and payments to members of the new authorities in England and Wales and the financial year of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 259.

Division No. 349]
[11.53 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Illsley, Eric


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ingram, Adam


Alton, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Battle, John
Lewis, Terry


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Beggs, Roy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Betts, Clive
McFall, John


Boyce, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Marek, Dr John


Burden, Richard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Caborn, Richard
Miller, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morley, Elliot


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Mudie, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
O'Hara, Edward


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Olner, William


Coffey, Ann
O'Neill, Martin


Connarty, Michael
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pickthall, Colin


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Raynsford, Nick


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Reid, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Rendel, David


Dixon, Don
Rooker, Jeff


Dowd, Jim
Rooney, Terry


Enright, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Short, Clare


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Alan


Fraser, John
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hall, Mike
Steinberg, Gerry


Hanson, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Henderson, Doug
Turner, Dennis


Heppell, John
Watson, Mike


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.


Hutton, John





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Bates. Michael
Burns, Simon


Batiste. Spencer
Butcher, John






Butler, Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Jack, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coe, Sebastian
Jenkin, Bernard


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Congdon, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cormack, Patrick
King, Rt Hon Tom


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Day, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Devlin, Tim
Legg, Barry


Dickens. Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lightbown, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Malone, Gerald


Faber, David
Mans, Keith


Fabricant, Michael
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Merchant, Piers


Fishburn, Dudley
Milligan, Stephen


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Iain


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Moate, Sir Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Monro, Sir Hector


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gallie, Phil
Nicholls, Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gamier, Edward
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gillan, Cheryl
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Gorst, John
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grylls, Sir Michael
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hague, William
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Hanley, Jeremy
Richards, Rod


Hannam, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Harris, David
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hawksley, Warren
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heald, Oliver
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Horam, John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard





Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sykes, John
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Michael Brown.


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to order yesterday, then put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 334 accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with special entry.]

Clause 247

SPONSOR GOVERNORS FOR AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Lords amendment proposed: No. 354, in page 148, line 6, at end insert—
("(8) In this section "direction'. means a direction contained in an order made by the Secretary of State"")

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 3, after 'State' add
'hut section 63(1) of this Act shall not apply to the power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section.' —[Mr. Forth.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 88.

Division No. 350|
12.6 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Bates, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bowden, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John






Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hendry. Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Bright, Graham
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burns, Simon
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Butler, Peter
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle. John (Luton North)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss. Michael
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Jenkin, Bernard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Congdon, David
Kilfedder, Sir James


Conway, Derek
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Legg, Barry


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Devlin, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lidington, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lightbown, David


Dover, Den
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lord, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Luff, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Elletson, Harold
MacKay, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Faber, David
Marland, Paul


Fabricant, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Merchant, Piers


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Milligan, Stephen


Fishburn, Dudley
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Forth, Eric
Moate, Sir Roger


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Nelson, Anthony


French, Douglas
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Galhe, Phil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Ganier, Edward
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gillan, Cheryl
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Gorst, John
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pawsey. James


Grylls, Sir Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pickles, Eric


Hague, William
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Hanley, Jeremy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hannam, Sir John
Richards, Rod


Hargreaves, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hawksley. Warren
Roberts. Rt Hon Sir Wyn





Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomason, Roy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sackville, Tom
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waterson, Nigel


Spink, Dr Robert
Watts, John


Spring, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Squire. Robin (Hornchurch)
Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hutton, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
lllsley, Eric


Alton, David
Ingram, Adam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Battle, John
Lewis, Terry


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beggs, Roy
Loyden, Eddie


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Betts, Clive
McCartney, Ian


Boyce, Jimmy
McFall, John


Bradley, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McMaster, Gordon


Burden, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Miller, Andrew


Chisholm, Malcolm
Morley, Elliot


Clapham, Michael
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Clelland, David
Mudie, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
O'Hara, Edward


Corbyn, Jeremy
Olner, William


Cox, Tom
O'Neill. Martin


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pickthall, Colin


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tarn
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Purchase, Ken


Dixon, Don
Raynsford, Nick


Dowd, Jim
Rendel, David


Enright, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rooney. Terry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Sedgemore. Brian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Snape, Peter


Hall, Mike
Spearing, Nigel


Hanson, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Henderson, Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Stott, Roger


Hughes. Kevin (Doncaster N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes. Robert (Aberdeen N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes. Simon (Southwark)
Wareing. Robert N






Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Spellar.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended. —[Mr. Forth.]

The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 69.

Division No. 351]
[12.18 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Elletson, Harold


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatiield)


Amess, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashby, David
Faber, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss. Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dlord)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jopiing, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui





Legg, Barry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd. Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V,


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson. Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan. Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Shaw, David (Dover)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Adams, Mrs Irene
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Alton, David
Hall, Mike


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hanson, David


Barnes, Harry
Heppell, John


Battle, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Beggs, Roy
Ingram, Adam


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Betts, Clive
Lewis, Terry


Bradley, Keith
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
McFall, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
Mahon, Alice


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cryer, Bob
Miller, Andrew


Dalyell, Tarn
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mudie, George


Dixon, Don
Olner, William


Dowd, Jim
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickthall, Colin






Pike, Peter L.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Stott, Roger


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 354, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 363, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments involving privilege:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 58.

Division No. 352]
[12.30 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker. Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Booth, Hartley
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Andrew
Gamier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight. Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whittingdale, John


Pickles. Eric
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dowd, Jim


Alton, David
Foster. Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hall, Mike


Beggs, Roy
Hanson, David


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Lewis, Terry


Chisholm, Malcolm
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clapham, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lynne, Ms Liz


Corbyn, Jeremy
McFall, John


Cox, Tom
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Meale, Alan






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Rooker, Jeff


Miller, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Spearing, Nigel


Olner, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Rendel, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 350, 365, 377, 404, 407 410, 460, 503, 532, and 556 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 59.

Division No. 353]
[12.42 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Amess, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garnier, Edward


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns. Simon
Hampson. Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Deva, Nirj Joseph
King, Rt Hon Tom


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)





Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland. Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Milligan, Stephen
Sykes, John


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moate, Sir Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trend, Michael


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson. Mark (Somerton)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Derek Conway.


Sackville, Tom





NOES


Abbott. Ms Diane
Hall, Mike


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hanson, David


Alton, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Battle, John
Illsley, Eric


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Ingram, Adam


Beggs, Roy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Betts, Clive
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McFall, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Chisholm, Malcolm
McMaster, Gordon


Clapham, Michael
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mahon, Alice


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cox, Tom
Miller, Andrew


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dalyell, Tam
Mudie, George


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Olner, William


Dixon, Don
Pickthall, Colin


Dowd, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Raynsford, Nick


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rooker, Jeff






Sedgemore, Brian



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Alan Meale.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Turner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION (LEVY)

That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1993. which was laid before this House on 7th June, he approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

SET-ASIDE.

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6744/93 and 7033/93, relating to set-aside; notes the Commission's intention to produce further proposals, in particular for the implementation of non-rotational set-aside; and supports the Government's objective of securing rules which, whilst maintaining the effectiveness of set-aside, give United Kingdom farmers flexibility in managing their set-aside land and enable them to do so in ways which benefit the environment.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

BIOTECHNOLOGICAL INVENTIONS

That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 4148/93, relating to the patenting of biotechnological inventions; and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive will need substantial amendment, including improved safeguards for animals, if it is to be acceptable.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Sir Michael Marshall he added to the Select Committee on Procedure.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Globe Theatre Project

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Robert Banks: I am most grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to an important international project of immense significance not only to London and Southwark but everyone who is interested in the works of the greatest English playwright, William Shakespeare. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is in his seat tonight. He has taken a keen interest in this project and, of course, has tabled many questions about it.
The area on the southern bank of the Thames known as Bankside was once the liveliest and most entertaining place in the kingdom. Elizabethan Londoners thronged to this notoriously boisterous stretch of the Thames around the southern approach to London bridge, making for its bull and bear-baiting rings, cockfighting pits, hostelries and brothels. But the most popular attraction were Bankside's four theatres, the Rose, the Swan, the Hope and—the most successful of all—the Globe.
The Globe was built in 1598 to a roughly circular design of 20 bays around the stage. A thatched roof lay over the bays around the perimeter of the theatre and the central area, where it cost a penny to stand and watch a play, was open to the sky. The bays stood three floors high and were made of oak frames coated in lime plaster. Londoners of all callings and occupations frequented Bankside's great theatres. After all, this was the cradle of perhaps the most exciting and important period of English drama.
Although, in many people's minds, William Shakespeare is firmly associated with Stratford upon Avon, he chose to live and work at Bankside for the most creative years of his life. He chose the Globe as the venue for performances of his masterpieces, and it was there that "Hamlet", "King Lear", "Othello" and the Scottish play was first enacted.
During a performance of Henry VIII in 1613, the Globe burned down, set ablaze by a spark from the stage cannon. It was rebuilt on its original foundations, but in 1642 the Puritans forced its closure, together with the other attractions at Bankside of which they disapproved so strongly. Two years later, the Globe was torn down to make way for new tenements in the area, and the character of Bankside quickly changed, becoming duller as the memory of its glorious, if sometimes notorious, attractions faded.
Since then, the South Bank has seen many changes. In places, the area's theatrical tradition has been revived, with the restoration of the Old Vic and opening of the National Theatre, but not at Bankside, where the world's most famous playwright lived and his greatest plays were first performed. More than three centuries later, Shakespeare's work is cherished for incomparable insight, wit and drama, not only by English-speaking peoples but throughout the world.
Nothing of significance marked Bankside's unique and colourful history until Mr. Sam Wanamaker, the American film actor and director, was inspired by his love and knowledge of Shakespearean theatre to end this sorry neglect. Visiting the 1934 international world fair at Chicago, Mr. Wanamaker was much impressed by


Britain's contribution of a mock Globe theatre. Since then, he has seen the success that mock Globes have had across the United States and in many other countries.
As a dramatist and trained actor, he understands particularly well that the beauty and artistry in Shakespeare's language is most clearly expressed when his plays are performed in authentic fashion and in the relatively unadorned setting for which the great bard intended them. Driven by his passion for Shakespeare, Mr. Wanamaker came to London in 1949 searching for evidence of the original Globe. Astonished and indignant at finding only a blackened plaque on a brewery wall to mark the spot, Mr. Wanamaker was convinced that the Globe should be reconstructed at Bankside.
In 1970, the Globe Playhouse Trust was formed. Soon after, a small museum and theatre were built at Bankside's Bear gardens. The museum exhibits many unusual items of theatrical interest, including several intricate models of the Globe and other open-air theatres of its time. Thousands of schoolchildren from across the country and abroad have visited the small theatre connected to the museum to take part in its wonderfully enjoyable drama workshops and productions.
It was not until 1982, after a pioneering struggle to raise support for the Globe project, that a 125-year lease was signed with Southwark borough council for a riverside site opposite St. Paul's cathedral. The site had been a bear-baiting pit during the 16th century, and the foundations of the original Globe lie only 200 yd south of the Bear gardens beyond a block of offices. Those foundations and the foundations of the Rose theatre were unearthed in 1989. The original Globe is now largely covered by listed Georgian buildings, so it cannot be further excavated.
After years of planning and fund raising, the project to build the most authentic Globe theatre in the world was ready to commence. I say the most authentic, not only because of its location but because of the extent to which authentic materials and craftsmanship would be used and the depth of historical research that went into the new Globe's design were unprecedented.
When part of the original Globe's foundations were uncovered, the project's architects were able to improve significantly on the previous best guesses as to the construction and appearance of the Globe. The theatre is to be the focal point of the much more extensive Globe centre. The centre will incorporate a large museum and exhibition. with an audio-visual achive and library. These, together with the Globe education centre, will offer visitors a unique chance to learn about Shakespeare, his plays and his times.
A grand piazza is to be surrounded by shops, flats and restaurants. The centre will also boast the !nig° Jones theatre, built to the great architect's elegant design. It will be used to stage plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and for concerts, poetry readings, lectures and recitals. With these plans, the Globe centre is set to become a cultural, educational and recreational attraction of international importance.
The project also offers significant commercial opportunities which private business will be keen to develop. However, before work could start, Mr. Wanamaker and the Globe trust had to contend with the destructive opposition of a newly installed extreme left Labour council at Southwark: 340 years alter the puritans had forced Bankside's theatres to close, the ideologues of Southwark

borough council claimed that the Globe project and even the study of Shakespeare were elitist. They tried to tear up the Bear gardens lease.
Thankfully, after four frustrating years of battle, the site was won back for the Globe, when Southwark borough council realised that it could not hope to defend its actions succcessfully in a court of law. Prince Philip presided over the Globe's ground-breaking ceremony in 1987, and construction began in earnest in 1989. Since then, a great deal has been achieved.
A major cost of the project was the construction of massive foundations 6 in deep to cope with a tidal river. Those foundations, and the shell of a vast subterranean Globe museum and exhibition, are now complete.
May I offer my warmest appreciation to those members of the general public and companies and others whose generosity has enabled the project to progress so far? I pay a special tribute to Mrs. Elizabeth Tompkins, widow of the late Richard Tompkins, who donated £250,000 for the construction of the Globe's stage, which is to be named after her late husband. Many companies, including Reuter's and Glaxo, have provided sponsorship and materials at greatly reduced prices. Others have given their expert advice free of charge. Donations in cash and kind have come in from the Governments of New Zealand, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the state of Bremen in Germany, demonstrating the great international interest in the project.
Unfortunately, no public body exists at present with responsibility for helping to fund theatre building. The Globe theatre project may be able to apply to the Millenium fund for financial assistance, but not for some years to come. Meanwhile, construction of the theatre remains dependent on donations and sponsorship. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has donated oaks from Great Windsor park to build the Globe's bays and tiered seating. Timber was also given by the Forestry Commission from the New Forest and the forest of Dean. More English oak is desperately needed, and I hope that the Government will be able to inspire and encourage the Forestry Commission and other landowning public bodies to supply the oak still needed to complete the Globe.
There is also a shortfall of steel. British Steel made a contribution, and Marais Steel of California donated 100 tonnes of reinforced steel. But 250 tonnes more are required to finish the project, and I hope that British Steel can be encouraged to step in with a further contribution.
The Globe offers many opportunities to Southwark, London and the whole country. The centre is set to become one of London's foremost tourist attractions and, as such, will bring large numbers of new jobs to Southwark.
The English tourist board estimates that, once completed, the Globe will be visited by more than 600,000 people each year—many, no doubt, from Yorkshire. With typical confidence, Sam Wanamaker predicts a figure closer to a million. What is certain is that shops, pubs and restaurants in Southwark will all benefit enormously from an influx of high-spending visitors.
The Globe centre itself will become a significant long-term employer for the area, with staff needed in its shops, restaurants, theatres and at the education centre, museum and exhibition. As I said earlier, not only is the Globe centre a great cultural project: it also offers important opportunities to private business.
At present, Bankside is dominated by office blocks and derelict warehouses and, as a result, the area is virtually


deserted after office hours and at weekends. The Globe centre brings new recreational and educational facilities, new trading and employment opportunities and is helping to revive some of the bustling vitality that Bankside enjoyed in the days of the original Globe.
The Globe project has received all sorts of terrific support, but, alas, it has not escaped the economic difficulties of recent times. Authentic materials and building techniques are no less than this project deserves, but they are also very costly. For example, the bricks laid at the base of the theatre are the same shape and size as those of the original Globe, and have to be specially fired. Despite the brickmaker's generosity in halving the price he would charge. these special bricks still cost four times as much as standard bricks. Thatching and lime plastering, which can only be done during the summer months, are similarly expensive.
Some £7·5 million has been raised and spent so far, to lay down the Globe's foundations. Another £2·5 million is needed to complete the Globe theatre's reconstruction. Now that the theatre itself is rising, the private sector will have a sound opportunity to participate in building the surrounding restaurants, shops and flats, to complete the project, designed by Theo Crosby of Pentagram Design.
The bulk of the money needed to finish the centre will continue to come from donors, sponsors and the private sector. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State shares my high opinion of the Globe's merits, and that he will look very carefully into the ways in which the Government could make a significant contribution, in cash or materials, to help boost the Globe project through to completion.
Then, despite fire, closure, destruction, and three centuries of neglect, the Globe will once again stand at Bankside, thanks to the inspiration, exceptional efforts and dogged determination of one man, Sam Wanamaker. Perhaps I hear Pericles in the wings:
Now do I long to hear who to thank
Besides the gods, for this great miracle".

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) realises that tonight's debate is particularly timely because this is the eve of the first South Thames festival. but we are in any case grateful to him for using this opportunity to draw attention to the case for completing the reconstruction of the Globe theatre, which is situated in one of the most historic parts of our capital city, which it is my great privilege to represent.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say—I thank him for it—that I, like many other hon. Members, have throughout been highly supportive of the Globe project. and wish it a speedy completion. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who have sought to achieve Sam Wanamaker's dream. Sam Wanamaker has been involved for longer than my lifetime, and there have been many others—most recently Sir David Orr, who was for many years the chairman and key promoter of the fund-raising project.
Let me correct what may have been an unintended misrepresentation on the hon. Gentleman's part. Whatever the earlier history. it is certainly now the case that all three political parties on Southwark council—the

majority Labour group of 34 councillors, the Liberal Democrat opposition group of 22 councillors and the third-party Conservative group of six councillors—all support the project. The project is thus entirely endorsed by the representatives of the local community, including the local councillors who represent the cathedral ward of the borough; indeed, the borough has made the area a regeneration area, creating a particular partnership between the local authority, the private sector and the local community.
I should add that there is a resident local community; we are not talking only about offices and open space. The rebuilt Globe site is also on the river, and the Countryside Commission has just completed a further stretch of the Thames path.
Perhaps the case for the Globe is best made if the House and the country appreciate the importance of Bankside as a whole: it embodies Shakespeare's England in all its glory —best if it can be enjoyed in the future as it was in the past.
May I say to the Minister and through him to his ministerial colleagues that his Department and others can help if they consider all that can be done for the area. So much could he done if the Government gave the area their full support. We could have the money to complete the Jubilee line extention and other public transport access, making the area much more accessible; we could have highly imaginative development of the Bankside power station site when that comes on the market next year; and we could have the continuing support of—and, it is to be hoped, the anticipated finance from —English Heritage, to ensure that the adjacent Rose theatre site, of which I am a director and trustee, is brought back to the public view.
I hope that the Globe will rise again very soon, and I hope that the Government will be very supportive of all that will bring Bankside back to its previously resplendent place on the London riverside.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on his good fortune in securing this evening's debate and on the erudite way in which he has presented the case for the replica of the Globe theatre that is at present being constructed in Southwark. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his assiduous support of this and related projects.
I have heard much about this ambitious undertaking, and I look forward to meeting Mr. Wanamaker and his colleagues in September. I know that the proponents of the scheme—most notably Mr. Wanamaker—have been tireless in their efforts on its behalf. Successive Arts Ministers—including, as recently as February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). now Minister for Roads and Traffic, have considered with the greatest care the not infrequent requests that have been made for a Government contribution towards meeting the costs of the project. On each occasion, the Government have warmly endorsed the efforts of Mr. Wanamaker and his distinguished colleagues, but have been unable to provide the financial support that they have been seeking.
Having listened intently to what my hon. Friend has said this evening, I have to tell him that I have not yet been persuaded of the need for any change in that response. None the less. I very much welcome the opportunity to


explain to the House the Government's position on the Globe project, in wider context of our support for those who uphold and build upon our matchless Shakespearian heritage.
Before doing so, I should like to congratulate Mr. Wanamaker on his appointment by Her Majesty the Queen as an honourary Commader of the British Empire. By a happy coincidence, the award was annouced earlier today. It was made in recognition of Mr. Wanamaker's remarkable contribution to relations between Britain and the United States of America, and all that he has done on behalf of the Globe.
Mr. Wanamaker has achieved distinction as an actor, director and producer, in films, television and the theatre, both here and in the United States. He has made a significant contribution to the cultural life of both countries and, in so doing, has strengthened the links between them. His award is well deserved, and will give much pleasure to many people on boths sides of the Atlantic.
I also greatly admire Mr. Wanamaker's commitment to the Globe project. He has long stalked the corridors of Whitehall seeking Government support for the scheme. He must therefore have viewed the advent of the Department of National Heritage with renewed hope. For the first time, policy responsible for the two areas that are most closely associated with the Globe project—the arts and tourism—have been combined within the remit of a single Department. The connection between the two is self-evident; it is, indeed, a primary aim of the Department to seek out ways of utilising and enhancing the links as a means of developing coherent policies that add value to both the arts and tourism. That is one of the new—and, to my mind, without doubt the most far-reaching—of the changes that have taken place.
But there is also an important element of continuity. Day-to-day responsibility for programmes, for which the Department is accountable, remains the preserve of a wide range of specialist agencies. In practice, that means that all but a very small proportion of the Department's budget of £1 billion or so is distributed through those sponsored bodies.
It is for that reason that the Department and its predecessor Departments have consistently held the view that any hid for support for the Globe project must be addressed to those bodies within the arts funding system, and by the tourist authorities, which have a direct interest. These bodies are clearly best placed to assess the priority that might be accorded to such an application, within the framework of their own policies and plans and the resources that have been made available to them.
Wholly exceptionally, the Government have made funding directly available, within these areas, for projects that are indisputably of outstanding national significance, such as the new British library at St. Pancras. Another example is the special grant that was made to secure a permanent home for one of our great opera companies. I must tell my hon. Friend that I share the view of successive Ministers that the Globe project does not fall within that category. That conclusion is heightened by the overriding need to exert the firmest controls on public spending.
As my hon. Friend will know, approaches on behalf of the Globe project have been made to a range of bodies funded by central Government. In February 1989, the English tourist board offered the Shakespeare Globe centre a grant of £200,000. The money was to have

contributed towards the cost of constructing and fitting out an exhibition centre, and the substructure of the Globe and Inigo Jones theatres.
The grant was awarded on condition that those elements of the project were completed by June 1991; however, by January 1992 the work had yet to begin, and —as it was obliged to do—the English tourist board withdrew the offer. I know that that must have been extremely disappointing for the Globe. I fear that it will not be possible to return to that potential source of funding, because that English tourist board scheme has now come to an end.
I know that Mr. Wanamaker and his colleagues have for some time been engaged in discussions with the Arts Council and the London Arts Board. Neither body is in the business of making capital grants, but both have welcomed the opportunity to know more of the Globe's plans for the productions that will be mounted there, and for the kind of educational work in which it will be engaged.
I am advised that the Arts Council's drama department would certainly be prepared to consider any proposal related to the use of the Globe that Mr. Wanamaker might wish to put forward—subject, it must be said, to the usual grant application criteria, and to available funding. Similarly, the London Arts Board has had a number of meetings with representatives of the Globe. Clive Priestley, its chairman, met Sam Wanamaker about a year ago; and, more recently, officers of the Globe have met the London Arts Board's drama team.
I understand that, at present, it is unlikely that the Globe could be offered revenue funding, but that project funding, through drama or education, would of course be considered. The Globe representatives have been encouraged to talk to the board's education team about Shakespeare in the national curriculum.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there any truth behind the stories in the weekend press that the. Government are seeking to restore to themselves the right to pay grants to such organisations, as against leaving that funding to the existing responsible bodies?

Mr. Sproat: I feel sure that, if anyone would know the answer to that question, it would be me, and I have heard no such rumours other than those that I read in the press.
The national lottery might offer more hope to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. It is at the forefront of the minds of many people with ambitions for capital projects like that of the Globe theatre. The most important thing about the national lottery is that it will not be a substitute for the £1 billion-worth of public expenditure of the Department. All the money that is made available from the proceeds of the lottery will be a bonus to the Department's existing public expenditure. New capital projects will be able to get off the ground where. previously, no money was available.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be keen to know, however, that the Department's role in deciding the beneficiaries of the national lottery will be akin to its role in the present funding structure. When it comes to individual funding decisions, it will maintain its arm's-length role.
We have said, however, that there will be a presumption towards those capital projects where it is hoped that revenue cost support would be found from other sources,


particularly from the private or voluntary sectors. Projects with clear plans for revenue costs would be favourably placed to be considered for lottery funds.
I am wholly at one with my hon. Friend, and indeed with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in acknowledging the absolutely central place of Shakespeare within the cultural heritage of this country; and, of course, there can be no doubt of the universal prominence and significance of our greatest playwright and poet. The Globe project is dedicated to the study, appreciation and excellence in the performance of Shakespeare's plays. I strongly endorse those aims; and I equally strongly endorse the idea that everything possible should be done to safeguard and enjoy our Shakespearean inheritance.
The Government, through the Arts Council, play a major part—one might say the major part—in ensuring that performances of the plays continue to be available by companies large and small, in all parts of the country. The superb work of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the Royal National Theatre, attracts large audiences in London, and, in the case of the RSC, also in Stratford. But it is worth noting that, with its grant from the Government, the Arts Council is able to support a number of tours of Shakespeare's plays, as well as productions at the great regional theatres.
With the support of the drama and touring departments of the Arts Council, in the past 18 months in this country, 55 companies put on 74 productions of 25 of William Shakespeare's plays—proof indeed of the value of this marvellous inheritance. There are also highly praised productions in the commercial theatre of the west end. At this present moment, "Much Ado About Nothing" is playing at the Queen's theatre, and "Romeo and Juliet" is being performed at the Open Air theatre in Regent's park.
William Shakespeare's importance as our greatest writer is reinforced by his unique position in the national curriculum. With the introduction of that curriculum, study of the work of Shakespeare, for the first time in this country, became compulsory for all pupils as part of English studies at key stages 3 and 4—that is, pupils between the ages of 11 and 16. Shakespeare is the only author in the English language whose work is an essential part of the national curriculum—study of the work of any other author is discretionary.
The Government have therefore led the way, directly and indirectly, in encouraging both the performance and the study of the works of Shakespeare. The reconstructed Globe would be a welcome addition to this already very lively and expanding scene.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am delighted to hear of my hon. Friend's commitment to Shakespeare, but would he be kind enough to go to see the project for himself, because he is so near? I know that that would be a great joy to those who are working so hard on it.

Mr. Sproat: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. If he wants to pursue that matter with me in more detail later on, I would be happy to meet him.
On behalf of the Government, I commend again the outstanding and prodigious efforts of Sam Wanamaker and his fellow trustees. I wish them well in meeting the challenges that remain, and in completing the daunting tasks that they have set themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stand ready to continue to offer what help we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.